Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Pembrokeshire (Hospital Service)

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will now publish the comments sent to him by the Welsh Hospital Board about the report prepared for his Department on the hospital service in Pembrokeshire.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I do not propose to publish the detailed comments I have received on the report. I am studying these comments and I will write to the bodies concerned as soon as possible.

Mr. Edwards: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there will be disappointment that the comments will not be published, and that it is now more than two and a half months since the report was prepared and one and a half months since those comments were received? When can we expect action on the recommendations of the report?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The recommendations and the report as a whole have been well received, and I know that people are anxious to hear my views, which I hope to make known very soon.

Milford Haven (Port Medical Facilities)

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the provision of port medical facilities at Milford Haven.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): The port medical facilities at Milford Haven were discussed recently between the Port Health Authority and the Chief Medical Officer of the Welsh Office. I understand that further discussions are planned.

Mr. Edwards: Is my hon. Friend aware that the port medical officer of health cannot fulfil the obligations laid on him by the Public Health (Ships) Regulations, 1966, or by the World Health Organisation without the co-operation of the Welsh Hospital Board and his Department, and that there is disappointment at the result of the discussions to which he has referred? Will he assure the House that he will give this matter his earnest consideration?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes, indeed. That was why I was able to say to my hon. Friend that further discussions are planned in the reasonably near future.

West Flintshire

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to visit West Flintshire.

Mr. Peter Thomas: On llth June.

Sir A. Meyer: I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that when he comes to West Flintshire—always assuming that he is able to get there along the A55 in the summer months—he will be a familiar and popular figure as he walks around the streets. Will he draw the attention of his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment to the unusually high unemployment figures, which may not be visible to him in the summer months but would be if he came in the winter, and ask them to consider what has happened to Oswestry and whether the same should not happen to West Flintshire?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, I am well aware of the figures which my hon.


Friend has mentioned. The area is subject to considerable seasonal variations, and a high percentage of those registered as unemployed in the Rhyl area are elderly retired people who have come to the area. I assure my hon. Friend that the coverage of assisted and non-assisted areas will be kept under review.

Local Government Reform

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what comments he has received from Flintshire County Council on his proposals for local government reorganisation in Wales; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Peter Thomas: None, so far, Sir.

Sir A. Meyer: May I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that there will be a general welcome in Flintshire for his decision to follow one of the few wise recommendations bequeathed to him by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), to resist suggestions that there should be an enormous, cumbrous county spanning the whole of North Wales, and, on the contrary, to provide two smaller counties? Wherever else he may lack friends in his proposals for the reorganisation of local government, he will find a great deal of support in Flintshire.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, Sir. Although I have received no official comments from the Flintshire County Council, I have had many comments from officials, councillors and people in Flintshire, and I am fully aware that the majority of people support the division of North Wales into two counties.

Mr. Alan Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of the informal discussions which he had prior to publishing his proposals for local government reform in Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir. I know of no predecent or reason for doing so.

Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the boundaries in his gerrymandering proposals appear to be based not on local government needs but upon last June's Conservative Party's canvas cards, and seem to have as their ultimate objective the aim

of robbing the Labour Party of up to seven parliamentary seats in Wales? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why he was given the twin posts of Chairman of the Conservative Party and Secretary of State for Wales?
Further, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give two categorical assurances—first, that there was no consultation between himself and officials of the Conservative Party on the effect that these boundaries would have upon the party political balance in Wales; and, second, that there is no intention to bring forward before 1979 the Report of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission?

Mr. Peter Thomas: That sort of exaggerated language has already been condemned by the Welsh newspapers in the matter of local Government reorganisation. Many of the objections that I have received to local government reorganisation have come from people whom the hon. Gentleman would identify with the Tory Party. I only wish that all the supporters of the Conservative Party in Wales were 100 per cent. behind the local government reorganisation proposals. Before these proposals were put forward, I obviously had a large number of discussions with a wide variety of people of all political complexions, and it would be absolutely pointless to try to list them all.

Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inadequate answer and the inability of the Secretary of State to give assurances of considerable constitutional importance, I give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Dental Service (Manning)

Mr. John: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from dental organisations regarding the manning of the dental service in Wales; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: None, Sir.

Mr. John: Did not the hon. Gentleman receive representations from the secretary of the chief dental officers of Wales in December last to the effect that the Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to me that there were 120 dental officers employed in the school


dental service of Wales was misleading to this House because there are, in fact, only 81? Will he now take the opportunity to correct this misleading statement, as he should have done months ago?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I was aware that the hon. Gentleman had asked a Question of my right hon. and learned Friend and had received an Answer. I was not aware that there was any difficulty about the Answer. If the hon. Gentleman will see me afterwards about this matter, I will most certainly look into it.

Dee Crossing Scheme

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he now proposes to initiate the Dee Crossing Scheme.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have nothing at present to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) on 1st March.—[Vol. 812, c. 1202–3.]

Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State deny the statement that for the foreseeable future the Cabinet will not give the go-ahead to this grandiose scheme for this crossing of the Dee because it will not, or cannot, obtain the necessary financial support? Will he also deny the statement that, if there is to be any priority in regard to barrages across estuaries or bays, it will be Morecambe Bay that should have priority rather than the Dee Estuary?

Mr. Peter Thomas: This is a very important proposal, and a decision will be taken jointly by the Secretary of State for the Environment and myself after consultations with other Departments. It is a matter of considerable complexity, and, as I said previously, it would be wrong to rush into a hasty decision.

Dee Road Bridge, Bangor-is-y-coed

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with Denbighshire and Flintshire County Councils about a new road bridge over the River Dee at Bangor-is-y-coed.

Mr. Peter Thomas: My Department has been in regular touch with bath county councils and remains willing to give any further help it can in resolving the disagreements between them.

Mr. Ellis: Is the Secretary of State aware that there has been need for a bridge at Bangor-is-y-coed for many years, that the present bridge is frequently closed causing considerable inconvenience to people in the area, and that the Denbigh County Council is now in process of considering its seventh or eighth proposal on this matter? Would the Minister consider taking direct action to move the two county councils into action to make sure that the inertia of the two county councils is not regarded as having been laid down by divine ordinance? Cannot the authorities get a move on and get the bridge built?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, this is a principal road bridge and the responsibility rests entirely on the two county councils. If I can be of any help in settling the problem, I shall be glad to do what I can at the request of both county councils.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will call for reports from a sample of Welsh local authorities regarding their implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, to date; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: It is too early to seek to survey progress. Two Sections of the Act are not yet in force and several others have been in operation for only four months.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I am disappointed with that answer. Considering that the Act has been on the Statute Book since last August, having passed through the House without a Division and having been accepted by both sides, should it not now be implemented?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: With respect, that may be the view of the hon. Gentleman, but the matter is one of some complication. The hon. Gentleman will see that on 11th February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services gave an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on similar lines to that which I have given today.

Mr. Fred Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that little encouragement is being given to local authorities to try


to do anything about the Act, and, indeed, the Government's attitude is a positive disincentive to action. If the Government will not activate Part I of the Act, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that little or nothing can be expected from local authorities other than what has been done by local authorities in my area, which have paid regard to this matter by starting to compile registers?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I cannot accept everything he says. I would expect the recently formed social services committees of local authorities to be considering the needs of the physically disabled as a matter of priority and the provisions of the Act to be given full weight when competing priorities have been settled.

Mr. Alec Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the chronic sick and disabled regard the Secretary of State as their watchdog on the provisions of the Act and that they look to him for guidance and the necessary financial assistance to enable local authorities fully to implement the legislation which so affects the people concerned.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implementation of Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, in Wales; and if he will give guidance to Welsh local authorities regarding the collection of information about Section 1 of this Act.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The Order which is to be introduced shortly to bring Section 1 of the Act into operation on 1st October will apply to Wales. My Department will distribute to Welsh local authorities guidance on the use of survey techniques prepared by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the Minister aware that a survey will not identify one disabled person? Is he further aware that we want to identify actual disabled people in constituencies in Wales and in England and that a survey will not

carry out this task? Will he not set an example and let Wales take a lead in this matter?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The first need is to assess the size and nature of the demand for services under the Act, and, in our view, the use of sampling and survey techniques is the better way to do this.

Mr. Fred Evans: Is not the Minister aware that this cumbersome method of taking sampling surveys is easily got over by enlisting the voluntary help of the Boy Scout movement, which can accomplish the same thing at a cheaper rate and in a shorter time? Will he not urge other local authorities to do what has been done in my area; namely, to prepare leaflets informing all disabled people of their rights under the Act and leaving room for notification on the form of any person in a household so affected? Does he not agree that it is not the compilation of a register but the actual identification of people that matters in this respect, and that the best way to achieve these ends is to harness the help of the many bodies which are willing to undertake this work if they are given a lead by the Government?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I know full well the hon. Gentleman's interest in this important matter, and I can assure him that the Government are anxious to press on with it. Although I cannot add to my original answer, I will look further into the matter.

School Counsellors

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the 23 teachers in Wales who have received training in educational counselling are in a full-time post of school counsellor, in a part-time post, or not counselling at all, respectively.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I understand that, of the 23 teachers referred to, one has taken a post outside Wales, five are not employed on counselling work at present and 17 spend part of their time on this work.

Mr. Ellis: Is the Secretary of State aware that the state of affairs revealed by his answer is even more unsatisfactory than that revealed by his answer on St. David's Day, when he said that 23


teachers had received training in counselling? Would he apprise local authorities of the importance of this subject in order to ensure that those who are trained educationally are able to undertake counselling?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in the provision that is made. I read the hon. Gentleman's speech on the Adjournment on the subject and I agree with much of what he said. Certainly, a great deal of advice and many publications are available to the Welsh Office, and we shall see that they are distributed even more than they are at the moment.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Secretary of State try to introduce into the programme of school counselling a system whereby counsellors could explain to school-leavers how to claim dole, since this year in a number of areas of Wales this problem will confront young people before they even get a job?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say that that matter should be part of the function of school counselling.

Pembrey (Gunnery Range)

Mr. Denzil Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will now publish the report of the public inquiry into the proposal to locate the Shoeburyness Gunnery Range at Pembrey.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will announce the findings of the court of inquiry into the proposed establishment of an artillery range at Royal Air Force, Pembrey, before a decision is made on the question of a third London airport.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have already indicated that the inspector's findings will be published when the matter has been fully considered.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman's reply is most disappointing. Does he not recollect that on St. David's Day, a month ago, he said that he would announce his decision very soon? Could he now say what is the reason for the delay, and, in particular, assure the House and the people of Wales that this delay is in no way caused by the deliberations

which are now taking place on the location of a third London Airport?

Mr. Peter Thomas: There are many factors which have to be taken into consideration, and one must give very careful and detailed consideration to this matter. One of the factors which the Government must take into account is the siting of the airport.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would the Secretary of State agree that, unless this decision is published before a choice is made about a site for the third London airport, people not only in Wales but in the country as a whole will think that skulduggery is afoot, since these are essentially separate issues and the question of amenity concerning the coastline in South-West Wales should not be muddled up with air traffic and air transport issues for the South-East of England?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no skulduggery afoot, but we have to take into account all the many important considerations. I hope to announce a decision as soon as possible.

Industry and Unemployment

Mr. McBride: asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) to what extent, at his meeting with the Welsh Council on 29th March, 1971, he discussed unemployment as a problem of social and industrial imbalance between the various areas of Wales;
(2) to what extent at his meeting with the Welsh Council on 19th March, 1971, he discussed the procurement of further financial investment in Welsh industry.

Mr. Peter Thomas: My dinner with the Council on 19th March afforded me the opportunity of reviewing generally its work over the past three years and of commenting on current problems in Wales. I understand that the Council will shortly be formally sending me its latest views on the economic situation, including problems of unemployment and investment.

Mr. McBride: Putting two Questions together when they are not related is a very bad thing. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is desirable, if we are to assist in solving unemployment in Wales, to minimise the


amount of migration of all types of skilled workers from the Principality, the loss of whom could cause serious industrial imbalance? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that as a result of the high level of unemployment any further migration of skilled workers from Wales would place a serious strain upon Welsh local authorities, in that they would have to provide social services and amenities while at the same time suffering from the serious imbalance caused by a falling rate yield? Is not the Minister's duty, given the difficulty of obtaining investment in Wales, to see that a financial injection is given to Wales, where the policies of his party and the inattention of his party have resulted in things crashing around their ears? Could not he persuade the hopeless Government of which he is a member to do something about it?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am just as concerned as the hon. Member about the high incidence of unemployment in Wales, which has persisted for many years. I am anxious to do all that is possible to bring that level down. But unemployment in Wales and the economic position of Wales cannot be isolated from that of the United Kingdom generally. As soon as the United Kingdom has an expanded economy and a reasonable rate of growth which is not being overrun by inflationary wage claims or undermined by industrial unrest, the unemployment rate will come down.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the new feature that is causing alarm in Wales is the fact that new industries brought into the country are beginning to close down, even though there is no rundown in the basic industry of coal? Is the Minister further aware that his complacency, as shown in the reply that he gave me when he said that he would discuss the economic situation with the Welsh Council only if the matter was raised by others, is appalling, and that he needs to pull his socks up if he is to do his duty by Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that when I went to see the Welsh Council it was in order to have dinner at the end of its meeting. I did not attend its meeting.

I had some informal discussions with members of the Council. I addressed them, as I have told the House. I have already said that I am very concerned about unemployment in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman has heard of the policies of this Government. I am satisfied that they will pay dividends, and that unemployment in Wales will decrease.

Mr. John Morris: The Minister says that he is concerned about the high rate of unemployment in Wales. I want to know what he is doing about it. Does he agree that since 18th June no new decisions for further dispersal of Government establishments in Wales have been made? Will he confirm or deny that since that day action to bring 1,500 Ministry of Defence jobs to the Cardiff area has been stopped?

Mr. Peter Thomas: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to ask me a specific Question perhaps he will put one down. I should like notice of the matter before giving a firm answer.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the reasons for unemployment are varied, and that at this moment 250 people are losing their jobs in my constituency because of the cancellation of defence contracts by the previous Government?

Mr. Peter Thomas: There are many reasons for unemployment in Wales. The inheritance which this Government had has caused the difficulties that we are in at the moment. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) knows—I shall give him a figure anyway—that from 1964 to when we took over in June, 1970, there were 68,000 fewer males in employment in Wales.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that the time is running out when he can rely on those foolish excuses? He has been in power for nine months and the day has come when he must take responsibility for the mounting and dangerous unemployment in Wales. Is he further aware that it is absolutely staggering that he cannot tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) what has happened in terms of the Government's decision about defence employment in Cardiff?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The unemployment situation in Wales is of considerable


concern to all of us, but the right hon. Gentleman must not exaggerate the situation or try to cause unnecessary despondency. The differential between the respective unemployment rates of Wales and Great Britain is less than it was a year ago. It was 1·3 points for the first quarter of this year, compared with 1·5 points for the first quarter of last year.

Mr. McBride: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. John: asked the Secretary of State for Wales, what representations he has received regarding the March figures relating to Welsh unemployment; and what replies he has given.

Mr. Alan Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the trend towards heavier unemployment in Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Representatives of the South Wales Advisory Committee of the T.U.C. raised this matter with me on Friday. Representatives of the North Wales Advisory Committee made similar representations to my hon. Friend the Minister of State earlier this month. We expressed our concern about the high rates of unemployment which have prevailed in Wales for several years and discussed the current economic and industrial policies of the Government with them.

Mr. John: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the policies of which he seems proud—although he should not be—are the very reasons why the unemployment rate is accelerating? Will he now be candid with the House and admit that the substantial number of 68,000 lost jobs in Wales between 1964 and 1970 arose from the policies envisaged by the previous Conservative Government, for which they took no remedial steps?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Member talks about accelerating unemployment. The number of wholly unemployed in Wales was virtually unchanged between February and March, although in Great Britain as a whole it increased. In par-

ticular, the number of males wholly unemployed in Wales declined. The hon. Member talks about the reasons for unemployment. The increase in Wales was due largely to a rise in the temporarily stopped. That was the aftermath of the postal strike, and the repercussions of other industrial disputes, particularly the Ford dispute.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that the answer that he has given does not conform to the facts, and that there has been a considerable increase in the underlying figures of wholly unemployed? Should he not be alarmed instead of complacent that, despite the fact that we have had an abnormally mild winter—one of the mildest winters since the war—and that the National Coal Board's pit closure programme is virtually completed, redundancy in Wales for the first 10 weeks has been running at a rate two-and-a-half times that of the annual rate in previous years, while the number of jobs in the pipeline has fallen alarmingly? Does he not realise that the people of Wales will not forgive his complacency and inaction at a time when the underlying unemployment figures are, if anything, being underestimated in Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am by no means complacent. I am very anxious to see the figures in Wales considerably improved, and I have every confidence that they will be. But the hon. Gentleman, who has a facility for bringing forward selected figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—might be interested to know that since the June election the percentage increase in unemployment in Wales has been rather less than it has been in Great Britain as a whole.

Sir A. Meyer: Is it not a fact that, quite regardless of the lamentable inheritance from the previous Government, if the policies now being advocated from the benches opposite—if they are policies which are being advocated—were followed, they would make it quite impossible for anyone to build up profitable industry in Wales, on which future employment prospects must be based?

Mr. Peter Thomas: It was quite clear when we took over office in June, 1970, that the policies which had been pursued by the Labour Party had failed, and that


a change of direction was needed. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has made an allegation that I have in some way selectively misled the House. What protection does a back bencher have against such an allegation, and am I able to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain that allegation?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, and I am afraid that it is not in my power to give the hon. Gentleman protection.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the unemployment situation is now so grave that he can no longer fall back on bromides and platitudes to explain it? Is he not losing credibility in the Principality because of his absurd and continued suggestion that the situation is the fault of the Previous Government? Is he not aware that the time has now come for his Government to produce an unemployment policy?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I have already told the House that I am concerned about the high level of unemployment in Wales—[Interruption.]—as I am about the high level of unemployment in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that the Government's policies will have the effect of bringing down this high rate of unemployment. [HON. MEMBERS: "When."] As I have said, a lot of factors must be taken into account. If we can have growth which is not overrun by inflationary wage claims or industrial disputes, unemployment will go down.

Mr. Alec Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now make a ministerial broadcast explaining the effects of Government policies on unemployment and prices in Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir.

Mr. Jones: Will the Chairman of the Tory Party not agree that, whilst the people of Wales have never had any reason to be grateful to the Tory Party, he could at least have taken this opportunity to make a Ministerial broadcast, and explain how the people now unemployed in Wales—and the figure is the highest March figure for many years—

can benefit from the income tax reduction when it comes to meeting the increased prices which this Government are deliberately forcing on the people of Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: A Ministerial broadcast would be without precedent and would not be appropriate. I shall explain to the Welsh Grand Committee on 28th April.

Mr. George Thomas: I understand the Secretary of State's reluctance to go on Welsh television to defend the Government's record in Wales, but will he now tell the House why he is so coy about debating the matter? Will he now be prepared to debate the matter with me on Welsh television, as he was not prepared to do when invited, so that the Welsh people can hear?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The proper place for such a debate is in this House—[Interruption.]—or in the Welsh Grand Committee, and there will be an opportunity—[Interruption.]—for this debate on 28th April. I have discussed the Welsh economic scene on both Welsh radio and television.

Mr. Gower: Is not the problem of dealing with unemployment in Wales, which is a serious problem, rendered even more difficult by the fact that the Government also inherited a runaway inflation? Is it not appalling that hon. Members opposite should now be exaggerating the position, and so rendering the task even more difficult?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The Government inherited not only runaway inflation but short-term and medium-term debts to the extent of £1,500 million and the worst industrial relations scene since 1926.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he expects a rise or fall in the level of male employment in Wales up to the end of 1972.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I expect further new industry to be attracted to Wales as a result of the measures being undertaken by the Government. But, as the previous Administration's experience fully proved, detailed forecasts of changes in employment for a period nearly two years ahead are not possible.

Mr. Morgan: Putting shallow debating points aside, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that after nine months of Tory Government there is an increase in the level of unemployment in Wales, that investment is stagnant and that the interest of industrialists outside Wales in Welsh industry is declining? Is it not perfectly clear, therefore, that the policies pursued by the Government are irrelevant to the problems of Wales?
Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as a person of integrity, tell the House candidly whether the policy of investment grants is conducive to raising the level of male employment in Wales or otherwise?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The policy of investment grants must not be considered in isolation. One must look at the whole package. I have no doubt that the changes which were announced by the Government will in the long run prove of benefit to Wales.

Rhondda (Comprehensive School)

Mr. Alec Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when it is intended to begin the continuation of a new comprehensive secondary school in the mid-Rhondda area.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I cannot say. I understand that because of more urgent projects, the local education authority is not likely to make a formal submission in respect of the proposal for some time.

Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State indicate that this project is not being held up by the existence of the old Naval Colliery tip, and that if the existence of the tip is restricting the construction of the school he will call on the derelict land unit of the Welsh Office to give the advice necessary to ensure that the tip is cleared so that the comprehensive school can come to that area?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I understand that if the proposed school were built it would require some tip removal to provide the site, but that, I understand, is not the reason for the project being held up. The Glamorgan Education Authority itself decides priorities, and makes submissions to me which, presumably, reflect priority, but the project to which the hon. Gentleman refers

has not commanded sufficient priority for submission to me by the authority.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House that he regards it as his duty to provide capital funds for the provision of new comprehensive schools in Wales as soon as possible in order to accord with the opinion of the vast majority of the Welsh people?

Mr. Peter Thomas: In this matter I have to pay attention to submissions which are made to me by the local education authorities.

Welsh Council (Terms of Reference and Membership)

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposes to make in the terms of reference of the Welsh Council; and whom he has appointed as the new Chairman.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I shall make a statement as soon as possible on the terms of reference and membership of the Welsh Council. I announced on 23rd March that Mr. Melvyn W. Rosser had accepted my invitation to succeed Professor Brinley Thomas as Chairman of the Council.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that he keeps the House waiting an inordinate time for his decision? When will he make this statement about the terms of reference of the Welsh Council? He is getting a reputation for causing the longest delay in Whitehall.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am studying the terms of reference in detail to see whether they need any slight amendment in the interests of greater clarity, but I do not envisage that there will be any substantial changes. As to delay, I have got in touch with the T.U.C., the C.B.I., local authority associations and county and county borough councils, and am now considering their nominations.

Steel Industry

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the British Steel Corporation concerning its investment policies in Wales.

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for safeguarding the interests of the steel industry in Wales.

Mr. Coleman: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had concerning the investment policies for the steel industry in Wales; and with whom.

Mr. Peter Thomas: My senior officials have had discussions with members of the Corporation very recently, and I have arranged to meet the Deputy Chairman later this week. I also keep in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on all questions regarding the steel industry in Wales.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Secretary of State indicated to the Corporation that he supports the decision to hold up the major investment scheme at the Spencer works after the matter had been thoroughly gone into by the Labour Government, and the go-ahead given? Does he appreciate that on 4th March the general manager at the works gave a categorical assurance that this scheme was to go ahead? What effect does he expect this turnabout to have on the morale of the work people? Does he support the idea of keeping a great industry dangling in mid-air? Why does he not stand up for Welsh interests, or else resign and make way for someone who will?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I certainly intend to stand up for Welsh interests and the steel industry in Wales. I am very conscious of the fact that it is the largest single industry in Wales, employing about 70,000 people, and that it should prosper.
I take it that the hon. Gentleman followed the debate in the House on 18th March. He will have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the revelations that have been made by the Corporation, and will also have heard that a deep-seated review of the whole of the Corporation's development and financial position is being undertaken. I am keeping closely in touch with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Secretary of State aware that on 18th March we not only

heard what he has described as the revelations of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but we also heard the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry say that he would hold up the Llanwern C development scheme? If he, as Secretary of State for Wales, has Welsh interests closely at heart, should he not go to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and ask him to make haste with releasing the money required for developing this great industry in Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry explained why it was necessary for Llanwern C to be deferred.

Mr. Coleman: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to repudiate those who suggest that Britain's steel needs should be met by importing steel from abroad? Further, will he impress upon his Cabinet colleagues the absolute need for the British Steel Corporation's investment plans to be restored to what they were under the Labour Government? Will he also impress upon the Cabinet the need for Britain to build three new integrated steel plants for the 1980s?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The Labour Government created this enormous organisation of the British Steel Corporation. The Corporation is obviously in some difficulty. My anxiety is to see that there is a steel industry in Wales which is viable and can afford proper and lasting employment opportunities for those who work in it.

Mr. Michael Foot: ; Does the Secretary of State really mean that he gave his approval to the hold-up in the Llanwern development scheme? Did he say "Yes" on behalf of his Department to the proposal from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that this development should be held up? What did the right hon. Gentleman say to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when it was proposed to abolish the investment grants? What effect does the right hon. Gentleman think that has had upon the steel industry of Wales? When will he make a statement in the House which can give some confidence to those who work in the biggest industry in


Wales? Does he realise that every decision taken by the Government has done the gravest injury to the steel industry in Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is just repeating what he said in the debate on 18th March. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said at that time. The decision on the deferment was a Government decision. I am a member of the Government and I share the responsibility for it.

Mr. Foot: In that case will the Secretary of State take care never again to refer in such terms to his inheritance from the Labour Government? The inheritance he had from the Labour Government in the steel industry was a go-ahead on capital investment, and that is what he is reversing.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The full inheritance by the Government in the steel industry will be known only after the deep-seated review has been conducted.

Mr. Barry Jones: Has the Secretary of State received any representations from the North Wales trade unions about the need to construct an integrated steel works on the bank of the River Dee?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The answer to that is "Yes", Sir.

Mr. Coleman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Welsh Hospital Board concerning the development programme at the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, Monmouthshire; what was the outcome; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers given to him on 1st March. My Department has regular discussions with the Welsh Hospital Board about its development programme for the Royal Gwent and other hospitals in Wales.—[Vol. 802, c. 1204.]

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister of State think that he is treating this matter in a rather dilatory fashion, particularly as consultants have indicated that they are taking calculated risks in sending patients home before they are properly fit, and that certain general practitioner emergency cases cannot be admitted at all because of shortage of beds? Does he want a major tragedy at this hospital before he takes any urgent action?

Mr. Gibson-Watt: I have not been dilatory, and I fully realise the problem. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department is in very frequent touch with the Welsh Hospital Board on this matter.

Spectacle Charges

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from National Health executive councils in Wales regarding increased charges for spectacles.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: None, Sir.

Mr. Roderick: I am rather surprised at the Minister's reply, because I have been receiving representations from all quarters both on the subject of increased charges for spectacles and on the whole range of increased charge for health services. The Minister received a letter from me last week from one authority, but I have others which will arrive on his desk in due course. The Minister and his right hon. Friend—

Hon. Members: Question!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put this in an interrogatory form. He must ask the Minister whether he is aware of these interesting facts.

Mr. Roderick: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister think that these increased charges will lead to an improvement in the health of the Welsh people or a deterioration, because he keeps referring to inflationary wage claims? He is inviting inflationary wage claims with the proposed charges.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: The letter which the hon. Gentleman sent to me did not come from the executive council, although it came on executive council paper signed by an ophthalmic optician. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, children under


16 and those over 16 who are still attending full-time at school will still be exempt from charges for standard lenses, and children's standard frames will be provided free.

Brecon and Radnor (Redundancies)

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of redundancies, of which he has been notified, in the counties of Brecon and Radnor since 1st January, 1971; and what is his estimate of the number likely in the next three months.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Notification of redundancies is made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I understand that since 1st January this year the Department of Employment has been notified of redundancies involving the loss of 715 jobs. It is not possible to make any estimate of the number likely to be notified to the Department in the future.

Mr. Roderick: In that case I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can help me by saying whether this includes the figures expected for Teddington Aircraft Controls, which will close on 9th April. I want the Minister to tell the House what he is prepared to do to help in this instance, particularly as this is a factory in a special development area, and the firm intends to transfer operations to Streatham, which is outside a development area. In that case, will the Secretary of State tell the House what he is prepared to do to intervene?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The increase in the redundancies since the reply which was given to the hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend is due to the closure of Teddington Air Controls. Apart from that, there would be a total of 63 redundancies since 1st January of this year. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the special circumstances in which it was announced that Teddington Air Controls was to be closed. It is a matter of concern, and my Department is in touch with the company.

Investment Incentives (Welsh Council's Report)

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the date on which he received the Welsh Council Report on Investment Incentives;

whether he discussed this report with the Welsh Council when he attended its meeting on 19th/20th March; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The report was formally submitted to me immediately before Christmas, but I had previously discussed the conclusions with the Chairman of the Council. The contents of the report were not raised with me on 19th March. I am grateful to the Council and to the Panel for their thorough study of a complex issue. I shall be replying to the Council in due course.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that this ill-considered report was very fiercely contested within the Welsh Council by our leading Welsh industrialists—I know my facts on this—and that this report—[Interruption.] I let my guard drop then. Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite this report, unless cash is provided for firms in their first two years whilst they are waiting to make their profits, we can expect far greater disaster amongst the new industries in Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I am very interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's views that this was an ill-considered report and also to hear his expressions of what went on at the Council. I do not believe that he is a member of the Council or of the Panel. The report, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is extremely well thought out, and I found it very useful. I am considering it very carefully.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kinnock, Question No. 23. I am sorry to be cutting down on the supplementary questions, but I should like to get to the end of Welsh Questions today, if possible.

Industrial Growth (Discussions)

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with local authorities on the subject of promoting industrial growth in Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Industry and employment questions have been raised at nearly all the meetings I have had with local authorities or their representatives since I took office.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this brings no puzzlement to hon. Members on this side of the House, since, in answer to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) earlier this month, we were told that, in response to a request for help from the large projects pool, local authorities received £2,195,000 instead of the £10,468,000 which they had requested? On the basis of such figures, how can anyone be expected to give credibility to the claim that the Government have made that they would improve the infrastructure of Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will know that a large number of the applications to be included in the large projects pool have been agreed.

Mr. William Edwards: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman publish and circulate to local authorities a paper on the exact functions that he performs in relation to industrial development in Wales? Is it not a fact that he has no responsibility for the allocation of advance factories? Is it not the case that he has very few facilities within his Department to obtain proper advice about the industrial state of Wales, and that he has now given up intervening in any Government decision which is adverse to Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows that the last part of his supplementary question is untrue. I have my responsibilities in so far as many of the matters to which he has referred are responsibilities of overall functioning. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is doing something in relation to Wales he always lets me know and takes my views into account. It is true that I have no executive functions; neither did the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) when he was in office. But there is no doubt that the Welsh Office is very much concerned with all matters relating to unemployment and growth opportunity in Wales.

Nursery Schools

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on nursery schools.

Mr. Peter Thomas: It is as outlined in Circular 8/60.

Mr. Jones: First, would the Secretary of State not agree that, subject to parental approval, it would be a desirable objective that children of two years of age should have part-time nursery schooling? Secondly, could the Secretary of State tell us when he intends to visit his first Welsh nursery School? Has he visited one?

Mr. Peter Thomas: I visited a nursery school in Newport a few months ago. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I give priority to the improvement of old and inadequate primary schools. We shall re-examine our policy on nursery education when this programme has taken effect.

Primary Schools

Mr. Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what alterations he proposes in plans for the improvement of primary schools in Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: None. The Government's policy announced in 1970 is designed to replace or improve within the next five years all inadequate pre-1903 schools for which there is a long-term need. I intend to press ahead with this policy as quickly as resources will permit.

Mr. Gower: While thanking my right right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will also look at some of the schools which were built between that date and the 1920s? Does he not agree that some of those need some modernisation?

Mr. Peter Thomas: Certainly. These schools are looked at, but the priority is to complete the replacement of all the old pre-1903 primary schools, for which there is a long-term need.

Infrastructure

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what further plans he has for the improvement of the infrastructure facilities in Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The Government's objective is to improve infrastructure in the older industrial areas. The term


covers a wide range of services including roads, housing, land reclamation, on all of which the Government will pursue vigorous policies.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. and Learned Friend aware that there is a great deal of evidence that the greatest need for infrastructure in some parts of Wales is still the improvement of our mad communications? Will he give some heavy weight to this consideration?

Mr. Thomas: I agree, and very heavy weight is being given to the improvement of roads.

Mr. Kinnock: As the Secretary of State says that heavy weight is being given to the provision of infrastructure, will he not accept that we on this side of the House and the people in Wales find that difficult to believe? Is he not aware that in the first two months of this year, according to the Department of Employment, 3,695 redundancies were notified in Wales alone? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman lend extra weight, if possible, to the provision of new jobs in Wales?

Mr. Peter Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman finds it hard to believe that great emphasis is put on our infrastructure in Wales, it shows that he has not read the figures published or listened to the answers that I have given.

Mr. McBride: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, in the matter of land dereliction, that the Lower Swansea Valley project, in Swansea, will now be financed out of the special projects pool?

Mr. Peter Thomas: No, I cannot say that without notice. If the hon. Gentleman would like to get in touch with me, I will certainly give him an answer.

PAKISTAN

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the situation in Pakistan.
The whole House will join me in regretting the loss of life in Pakistan, a

fellow member of the Commonwealth, and in hoping for a restoration of normal conditions. As the House will appreciate this is an internal matter affecting relations between two parts of a sovereign country, and I will not be expected to speculate on political matters which are the concern of the Pakistan Government. Her Majesty's Government are, however, watching the situation very closely, and we remain in constant touch with the Pakistan authorities.
A fortnight ago, on the advice of the Deputy High Commissioner in Dacca, some 200 United Kingdom and Commonwealth women and children were evacuated from East Pakistan. In the past few days of disturbances, we have had no reports of any injury to members of the British Community in East Pakistan, who now number about 700. The British Council offices and library in Dacca were attacked in the course of operations on the night of 25th March in the area of the university; the damage cannot yet be properly assessed, but no member of the Council staff was hurt. There are no other reports of damage to British property, but, as communications from East Pakistan have been restricted and communications between Dacca and other parts of the Province disrupted, the House will appreciate that our information may not be complete. I shall keep the House informed.

Mr. Healey: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that report. The whole House shares his deep sorrow at recent events in Pakistan. We recognise that at the moment information must necessarily be incomplete, and we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will make another statement when more information is available.
The House will be particularly concerned for the safety of British lives and property, and in this connection I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer two questions. First, does he know who was responsible for the attack on the British Council offices in Dacca, and are steps being taken to obtain compensation for any damage caused? Second, has he an assurance from the authorities in East Pakistan that all assistance will be given should it be necessary to evacuate further British personnel?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last question is, "Yes", although the Deputy High Commissioner, as we understand it, does not advise further evacuation at this time. The Army was responsible, as we understand it, for the attack, on the British Council offices. We have brought the matter to the notice of the Pakistan authorities and we shall in due course ask for compensation.

Mr. Thorpe: We share the sadness which the Foreign Secretary has expressed about these events in a Commonwealth country with which we showed our solidarity at the time of the floods.
In view of the unhappy experience of this country's involvement in another Commonwealth civil war, namely, in Nigeria, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, apart from offering our good offices if they should be required, there will be no further involvement, and, in particular, there will be no question of supplying arms to either side?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have said that we have no intention of getting involved in this matter, which is a civil matter for the authorities in Pakistan. As regards arms, no new contracts have been entered into with Pakistan for a good many months now. I shall review this question, but I think that nothing imminent arises.

Sir F. Bennett: I am delighted to learn that Her Majesty's Government have no intention or thought of intervening in an internal matter, which could only make things a great deal worse, but could my right hon. Friend tell us whether the same restraint is being exercised elsewhere, since what is s already a horrible matter could become a great deal worse if any other outside Power—quite apart from Great Britain—intervened?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have not heard that any outside Power is intervening or intends to intervene.

Mr. Shore: These are deplorable events. Will the Foreign Secretary impress upon the Pakistan Government the abhorrence felt by very many people in this country at the brutal and repressive measures which they are taking against the East Bengal people, and will he impress upon them also that we are

most concerned that their troops should be withdrawn, that the killing should stop, and that Sheikh Mujib and his followers should not be the victims of repression? Further, will the right hon. Gentleman do everything in his power to impress upon the Pakistan Government that the people of Bengal have the right to decide their own future, and, if need be, to decide on a separate future for themselves?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that it would be helpful for me to comment on those matters at this time. Everyone abhors violence. The President of Pakistan, as we understand it, was faced with a situation in which his country might have been divided in half. We must allow the Pakistan authorities to deal with this matter without our intervention.

Mr. Wilkinson: I associate myself with the expressions of deep regret at the tragic events which have befallen Pakistan, a Commonwealth partner with which we have personal as well as historic links. When my right hon. Friend speaks of a British community of about 700 in Pakistan, does that include Pakistanis of British citizenship who have gone on short trips to East Pakistan, or does he mean British people only? Further, will my right hon. Friend, through the usual diplomatic channels, try to obtain information about the relatives of East Pakistani citizens who have connections in this country who might be affected by the troubles?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The figure of 700 does not include Parkistanis. At the time when we brought out the 200 United Kingdom citizens, the Deputy High Commissioner was in touch with most of the families in Pakistan. Everyone understands how difficult it is to get communication with those up-country, but at that time we took out all who wanted to come. At the moment, the Deputy High Commissioner, as we understand it—although communications are difficult—does not advise further evacuation, but plans are laid should people wish to leave.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May I press the Foreign Secretary on the questions of arms? There appear to be considerable differences between this situation


and the Biafran situation. It is recognised that we do not supply arms at the moment. Will the Foreign Secretary give an undertaking that, if the Pakistan Government did ask for arms, he would make a statement to the House before coming to any decision about it?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is a hypothetical situation which we had better leave at present.

Mr. Judd: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must be careful not to intervene in what is essentially an internal affair, but would he not agree that one of the causes of frustration in Pakistan is the disproportionate amount of economic assistance going to West Pakistan as compared with East Pakistan, and will he assure the House that, in the aftermath of this unfortunate incident, we shall do everything possible within the aid consortium to encourage full economic essistance to the eastern half of Pakistan?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The ironic aspect of this situation was that for the first time it was possible for an East Pakistani to be Prime Minister of a united Pakistan, and this opportunity has slipped.

SOCIAL SECURITY

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Social Security Bill published today.
Section 10 of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, like earlier legislation, provides that during trade disputes persons disqualified on that account for receiving unemployment benefit are not entitled to receive supplementary benefit for their own personal requirements, though it is payable for their dependants and their rent. But for many years it has been customary to ignore the tax refunds and strike pay—and any other personal income—available to the people involved up to the level of the personal requirements of the strikers and others disqualified because of a trade dispute—currently £4.35—when calculating benefit for their dependants. The result is that the total household income is often

brought up to the full supplementary benefit level.
The Government believe that the principle embodied in the Act is an important one, generally accepted as fair by public opinion; and they do not think that the present practice, which is totally inconsistent with the principle should continue. The Bill accordingly provides that the personal income of persons affected will be treated in exactly the same way as miscellaneous income is treated in other supplementary benefit claims. The effect will be that, in the great majority of cases, up to £1 only will be ignored instead of up to £4.35.
When a trade dispute is over, Section 10 ceases to apply and the men, as well as their dependants, are eligible, for up to 15 days, for supplementary benefit, though during this period they are earning wages which will normallly at the end of the second week be paid. Because these wages were being earned and advances—or "subs"—were given by many employers upon them, the need for supplementary benefit was in the past fairly limited. But in recent years, and particularly since a strike in 1969 after which employees succeeded in persuading their employer to withdraw an offer of subs, there has been increasing replacement of subs—which are repayable and come out of taxed income—by supplementary benefit which is neither repayable nor taxable. This has played a large part in the rapid increase in expenditure on benefit following strikes. In 1968 it was about £80,000 for large strikes alone. In 1969 and 1970, again for larger strikes only, the figure leapt to £670,000 and nearly £900,000 respectively. If all strikes were included, these figures would be higher still. This cannot be allowed to continue. The proper way of tiding workers over till their pay is due after return to work is by way of advances of earnings. The Bill therefore provides that supplementary benefit paid to men who have returned to work after a dispute during which they were disqualified for supplementary benefit for themselves shall be recoverable—though not at such a rate as to cause hardship—through the employer.
Supplementary benefit paid to the families of strikers and others disqualified during strikes, and to strikers and their families after strikes, amounted in 1970 to £2½ million.
The savings from the supplementary benefit changes I have referred to depend on the number and scale of disputes, but if the changes had been in force in 1970 they would have saved about £1¼ million.
The Bill further provides for a statutory deduction, in most cases of £2·05—compared with 75p usually at present—from the supplementary benefit payable to those disqualified for unemployment benefit because they have left a job voluntarily or been dismissed for misconduct or refused to take a suitable job offered to them. This will save rather more than £500,000 in supplementary benefit expenditure a year.
I have not consulted the Supplementary Benefits Commission about the relevant provisions of the Bill although, as a matter of courtesy, it has been told of them.
Turning to national insurance, the Bill implements the Government's intention, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th October last, to end the retrospective payment of benefit for the first three days of a spell of sickness, injury or unemployment. The net saving from this change is expected to be about £19 million in a full year.

Mr. Orme: Disgraceful.

Sir K. Joseph: The Bill further provides for the abolition of Social Security Local Advisory Committees. The committees now number 141 with 4,000 members, and in present circumstances sufficient useful work cannot be found to justify the demand they make on the time of so many busy members of the community. Abolition will save about £130,000 a year of public funds.
I commend these proposals to the House, since they would last year, had they been in force, have saved half the cost to the taxpayer of supplementary benefit in this field, while protecting wives and children.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: May I begin by protesting very strongly about the fact that this statement has appeared in all the morning Press before being made to the House?
The Opposition very much deplore the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to consult either the Supplementary Benefits Commission or the

Trades Union Congress. Presumably, if one has a doctrinaire attitude one does not wish it to be altered by those with expert knowledge of what may be the effects of it.
The right hon. Gentleman is aware, as we are, that disqualification goes very much wider than strikers themselves and involves all those in the class or grade of those in a firm on strike.
First, will he justify the fact that disqualification will affect married men only and those with children and not unmarried men, thereby making a very strange distinction?
Second, will the urgency provision under Section 13 of the Ministry of Social Security Act still apply?
Third, when the Secretary of State for Employment has said that it is not intended to discourage legitimate strikes, how can the right hon. Gentleman possibly justify the fact that he is presumably making no distinction whatsoever between strikes which he himself would agree are legitimate and those which he would say are unfair?
Fourth, we are aware that there has been some abuse of subbing by employers as well as employees, but will the right hon. Gentleman define rather more closely what he means by the phrase, referring to recovery of supplementary benefit, "though not at such a rate as to cause hardship"? That could mean almost anything.
Fifth, has the right hon. Gentleman at any stage discussed with employers the difference between those who pay within the first week or two weeks when a man resumes work and those who do not pay for a longer period? In other words, has he made any endeavour to get this on the same basis throughout all employment?
May I ask him next—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry, but if the Government insist upon making Second Reading speeches in the form of statements they will be asked Second Reading questions about them. How does the right hon. Gentleman justify the deduction of £2 from those who are disqualified for unemployment benefit because they have left the job voluntarily or been dismissed for misconduct, when his own Government have not so far taken any powerful steps with regard to


unfair dismissal, and when he has set up a committee to look into abuse, but apparently is not waiting to hear its conclusions? The Secretary of State is proposing to abolish Social Security Local Advisory Committees. Will he take any steps to get full representation of trade unionists and employers on whatever machinery he has in mind to replace those committees? We on this side do not accept that his Ministry will act as it should without the expert knowledge that trade unionists and others have brought to bear on local advisory committees.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that the Supplementary Benefits Commission would have thanked the Government for consulting it about a matter which must be for the Government to decide, and which is distinctly political—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—which has distinct political overtones. The very reaction of the House shows that.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Enoch has won the day.

Sir K. Joseph: This is not the year, following a year in which strikes were more numerous than in any year since 1926, to relax the grade and class conditions to which the hon. Lady referred. I confirm that single men will not be affected, because they are not entitled to supplementary benefit when on strike.
Section 13 will remain for hardship payments—

Hon Members: Go on.

Sir K. Joseph: I am trying to remember the hon. Lady's fifth question. Certainly the Government justify their decision, because all it does is to restore the original intention of Parliament in passing the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, which was put to Parliament by the last Administration. The repayment provisions will provide for protective earnings at a level at least £2 above the supplementary benefit level so as to ensure that repayment will not involve any hardship.
The deduction for misconduct at 40 per cent. of the single person rate is not difficult to justify, since the hon. Lady's party suggested that the deduction should

be increased from the present level to 33 per cent. of the individual rate.
Local advisory committees have not been conducting any sort of appeals function. There is a whole hierarchy of appeals tribunals and we have literally not been able to find any work to justify their continued existence.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the most valuable steps which he proposes to take to deal with an abuse of supplementary benefits in trade disputes. Nevertheless, may I ask him to confirm that if the Bill had been in operation now the subsidy paid through the supplementary benefits system would nevertheless have been payable in the Ford strike and would have amounted to several hundred thousands of pounds to date?

Sir K. Joseph: No. Had this measure been in force the supplementary benefit payable to workers at Ford now engaged in a trade dispute would have been cut to something like two-thirds.

Mr. Concannon: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to operate the abolition of the three waiting days every time a worker is off sick or on a 13-week basis? Does he appreciate what the disappearance of the three waiting days will mean in the mining industry, in which miners average 28 days a year off through ill health?

Sir K. Joseph: It will be worked as it is at present; for every spell that lasts for more than 12 benefit days the three waiting days now paid retrospectively will not be paid once the Bill is passed. [Interruption.]

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the general public will be pleased with the way in which he is proposing to deal with the scrimshankers—[Interruption.]—those who get this benefit when on strike? However, may he not be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut by introducing this measure? In other words, could not the present difficulties have been dealt with more effectively by clamping down administratively by interpreting the rules in a tougher way?

Sir K. Joseph: No. We are dealing at the moment with a discretion that has been exercised over the years, perfectly


within its rights by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. If the Government are to impose their own decision, then they must change the law. We could not ask the Commission to use its discretion as we would wish because its discretion is for it to decide. It is only fair, therefore, that we should change the law, which is what we propose to do.

Mr. Heffer: This is one of the most vicious and mean acts—[Interruption.]—that any Government have ever perpetrated in this country. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only Tory businessmen will gain any pleasure from this proposal and that the ordinary working people—not just the trade unionists and the wives and children of strikers—will be affected by the three waiting days decision? This is one of the most disgraceful steps taken by this Government, who have acted disgracefully since they came into power.

Sir K. Joseph: I really believe that the vast bulk of the public who support both great parties in this House would, on the whole, agree with the change which the Government propose in connection with supplementary benefits for those connected with trade disputes.
As for the three waiting days, the hon. Gentleman will surely admit that since that provision was introduced the whole position of the person who is short-term or medium-term sick or unemployed has been transformed by higher wages, increased savings, redundancy pay—

Mr. Orme: Come off it.

Sir K. Joseph: —employers' sick pay schemes, which now cover 40 per cent. of the working population, and earnings related benefits.

Mr. Orme: Shocking.

Mr. Pardoe: While entirely accepting the principle that the State should not have to pay strikers when on strike—[Interruption.]—may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to estimate how much of the £19 million that he thinks will be saved by ending the three waiting days will end up as an extra cost on industry, the employer having to pay this sum?

Sir K. Joseph: The employee often gets the benefit of both industrial payments and National Insurance payments. As a result of this change there will be

some more claims on supplementary benefit for those who cannot get by on National Insurance and employers' pay, but we calculate that these claims will amount to only £1 million a year as against the £20 million that will be saved.

Sir S. McAdden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for some time those whose income has been derived from pensions resulting from war service and so on have felt a sense of disagreement that those sums should be regarded as income liable to tax whereas payments made in the form of supplementary benefits are not added to one's income and are not, therefore, regarded as taxable? The announcement made by my right hon. Friend today is, therefore, justified all round.

Sir K. Joseph: I acknowledge the feeling, but the question which my hon. Friend raises is one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Atkinson: Do the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has announced differ greatly from those made by various employers' federations and submitted to him some time ago? In other words, would he care to indicate the difference between his proposals and those made to him by various employers' groups?

Sir K. Joseph: I will do better than that. The proposal about disregards has been made by the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and the one on the waiting days was proposed by the Labour Government.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of the public want him to concentrate supplementary benefits on those who are in need through no fault of their own, particularly the disabled and the very old, and that they are not so sympathetic towards supplementary benefits being paid to people who are in need in pursuit of their own advantage?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend has got the point exactly right.

Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he shows his ignorance of what this will mean to millions of working people who have no benefit other than that provided by the State, and that if he thinks that public opinion will be behind this step he is sadly mistaken? Is


he aware that he is equally mistaken if he thinks that this will affect workers who are striking for justifiable demands? It will only make disputes more bitter because workers will continue to resist if they believe their case is right.

Sir K. Joseph: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about supplementary benefits is that the Government are removing an anomaly that has crept in. As for the waiting days, the hon. Gentleman really must acknowledge, if I am said to be ignorant of the implications, that it was a Government of his party who introduced this proposal.

Mr. Orme: But we stopped it.

Mr. John Mendelson: When the Secretary of State told the House that because of the high level of incomes the change in the three waiting days did not matter, he showed his ignorance in a surprising way, because for the 6 million to 8 million people now on low wages this will be a serious inroad, for they need the money very badly. Does he not realise that, in spite of his attempt to disguise it, his decision to make the conditions of families and children much more difficult is a malicious decision to punish the families of men on strike and fully justifies working people in now taking every kind of action to oppose this class legislation?

Sir K. Joseph: Before making such provocative remarks, the hon. Gentleman should contemplate that the low earner who is involved in a trade dispute and who has no benefit from tax reliefs has had the supplementary benefit protection under which we are now suggesting that the man with a family should be treated.
Secondly, I do not accept that I showed any ignorance about the waiting days. The low earner has not been able to manage on National Insurance sickness benefit. This has meant that from the very first week he has been on supplementary benefit. The retrospective payment for the three waiting days in the third week will not make a ha'porth of difference to him, as it is merely an adjustment between the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the National Insurance Fund.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: May I correct something which the right hon. Gentle-

man said earlier and which drew great applause from his own side? He will recognise that I accepted that the Opposition when in Government had moved against subbing, but he will recall that in the Industrial Relations Bill which was mooted by my right hon. Friend the Shadow Secretary of State for Employment a change was made in disqualification in directly the opposite direction to that in which the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to move.

Sir K. Joseph: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon. I did not realise that I was referring to the Donovan Report in this connection. Certainly the hon. Lady is right and her Government sought to legislate as the Donovan Commission recommended.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) put a question to the Secretary of State to which he did not reply, perhaps recognising that it was a matter not for him but for you, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to make a submission to you about it.
My hon. Friend asked how it came about in that almost every newspaper today there was an advance story in great detail about the statement. It also happens that in almost every newspaper over the weekend there was an advance of the statement that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is about to make. This matter was previously referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) when the Secretary of State made a statement about an inquiry into the working of the Abortion Act, and the Secretary of State then implied that it was a coincidence.
It is plain that these Press stories which appear in advance of Ministerial statements are not coincidence but are the result of briefing. No journalist could be asked not to publish a story on which he had been briefed, and clearly any journalist will rightly print a story which he has obtained.
But the present situation when Ministerial statements to the House are being anticipated consistently by Press briefings is fast becoming a contempt of the House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to initiate inquiries to discover how this


briefing takes place and to ask the Leader of the House, who is responsible for Government information, whether he will arrange for a statement on the matter to be made.

Mr, Speaker: Those are not matters for the Chair.

LOCAL COMMERCIAL RADIO STATIONS

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
I am presenting today a White Paper announcing the Government's proposals for establishing an alternative service of sound broadcasting. The Government proposes a service of local radio to be transmitted on very high frequencies and on medium frequencies, and to be financed from the sale of advertising time. Up to 60 stations attaining coverage of about 65 per cent, of the population on V.H.F. can ultimately be provided. On medium frequencies the daytime coverage will reach about 70 per cent.: by night it will be about 25 per cent.
The service will be entrusted to the Independent Television Authority, which will become the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The I.B.A.'s rights and duties in relation to its radio service will be similar to those of the present I.T.A. in relation to television. Rolling three-year contracts, renewable each year, are however proposed for the radio programme companies-a system that will combine strong powers of control for the Authority with prospects of greater security of tenure for the programme companies than can be obtained with fixed term contracts.
The Government's intention is that the stations should combine popular programming with a good service of local news and information. Another major objective of the new service will be to provide an alternative source of national and international news on radio. The White Paper identifies three ways in which this might be provided and will, I hope, promote discussion about the best means of securing a good central news service.
Following detailed consultations with newspaper interests, the White Paper contains proposals which will entitle the Press to participate in the companies awarded contracts.
The White Paper also announces the Government's conclusion that the B.B.C.'s 20-station service of local radio should continue, and that in due course it should be transmitted not only on V.H.F.—as at present—but also on M.F. Thus it has proved possible to plan the new service alongside the existing services of the B.B.C., and I should like to thank the Corporation and its engineers for the assistance we have received from them in overcoming the frequency problems involved.
The Government believe that competition will be as welcome in radio as it has been in television, and that our proposals will afford a significant extension of choice for the listener.

Mr. Proudfoot: On a point of order. I should like to ask your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker. The White Paper was available at 4 o'clock. I am led to understand that the Press has White Papers on any subject before that time in any case, but I am informed that the B.B.C., which at the moment has a monopoly in sound broadcasting, has had this White Paper since this morning. Could the House inquire into that?

Mr. Speaker: The matter could be inquired into, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Richard: May I say at the outset that we are glad that the Minister has finally decided to make a statement, although we are astonished that it took the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition to make him do so.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): It was my fault.

Mr. Richard: I do not know whose decision it was, but we are glad that the statement has now been made.
The Opposition regard the proposal as nothing more than the establishment of another 60 pop stations. There is no demand for them. This is a piece of Conservative theology designed to satisfy


an ill-considered and half-baked pre-election pledge. We quite well understand that the Minister has been leaking like a sieve up and down Whitehall for the last fortnight dissociating himself from these proposals; they are not his proposals; it is not his White Paper; he proposed originally a national network actually producing the programme.
Why has that proposal been omitted from the White Paper? Why has he gone back on the original proposal to set up a national structure, which it might have least been argued was a real alternative to the B.B.C? What happened to that proposal? Why was it axed in the Cabinet? Is it not because a Conservative Party has again put cash before standards?
May I ask three specific questions—I have had a chance to look at the White Paper for only a couple of minutes? First, how much cash does the Minister estimate it will take to establish this structure? Secondly, he says in his statement that the Independent Broadcasting Authority's rights and duties in relation to its radio service will be similar to those of the present I.T.A. in relation to television. Does that include such matters as the balance of the programmes? Does it include programme content? Does it include such things as protection of minority interests and the proportion of advertising time per hour of transmitting time? If it includes all those items, how does he think that individual local stations will be financially viable?
Finally, how are these standards to be enforced other than through a national system which he and the Cabinet have rejected?

Mr. Chataway: The somewhat feverish way in which the hon. Gentleman seizes on every bit of tittle-tattle that he can get hold of conceals, I suppose, the difficulty the Opposition are finding themselves in in deciding whether to go through a repeat performance of their opposition to commercial television. I know that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has urged his hon. Friends not to do that. If we are to have outright opposition from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite over the introduction of competition in radio

I am sure that many of us will probably store up some of the sayings of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen for use in the next election.
On the three points to which the hon. Gentleman referred, if there is no demand then these stations will not survive, just as if there had been no demand for commercial television that would not have survived. The duties of the I.B.A. will be similar in all respects that he mentioned to the duties that it performs in relation to television at the moment. I believe that in broadcasting as in any other sphere of activity competition benefits the consumer.

Sir G. Nabarro: While congratulating my right hon. Friend most warmly upon honouring precisely a Conservative pledge at the last General Election, may I ask him to satisfy the House on two points? First, will he say that commercial radio will not entail any support with Government funds and that all commercial radio stations will be financially self-supporting? Secondly, as he has drawn the analogy between commercial television and commercial radio, will he give an undertaking that the advertising of cigarettes on commercial radio will not be permitted, as it is not permitted on commercial or any other form of television?

Mr. Chataway: I can confirm that there will be no public subsidy whatever for commercial radio, any more than there has been for commercial television. While specific regulations about advertising would be for the Authority, it is practically inconceivable that the advertising of cigarettes would be allowed on radio, since it is not allowed on television.

Mr. Grimond: I should declare an interest in that I was in the past a member of a consortium which made a bid for a television station—thank God, unsuccessfully. I am also a trustee and a director of a newspaper group. May I ask the Minister whether it is intended to choose these new contractors for radio in the same way as the television contractors have been chosen, because it is a most extraordinary method, not seen in this country since the 18th century? It ought to be looked at again. Apart from the question of subsidising them, will they be subject to a levy, the levy or any payment to the Government?


Secondly, is he aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction in certain parts of the country with the present coverage of radio and television? Can we have an assurance that this new service, which will no doubt operate in the populous and paying areas, will not mean that the B.B.C. will be discouraged, financially or otherwise, not only from maintaining but from extending its present services? I want an assurance that that will not be placed in jeopardy.

Mr. Chataway: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am sure that the Authority will bear in mind what he says about the allocation of contracts. I believe that the proposal in relation to a rolling three-year contract will be thought to have considerable merit in this context.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend make certain in the interests of full competition that the local B.B.C. stations have access to the medium wave in the same way as the commercial stations?

Mr. Chataway: I am glad to say that this has proved possible.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I commiserate with the right hon. Gentleman for having lost the main battle against the commercial radio lobby? May I congratulate him for having saved something from the wreck and in so doing for having moved slightly in the direction that I was pressing upon him some time ago? Will he recognise that unless the advertising revenue goes to the Authority and not to the commercial companies, the commercial companies will exploit this situation unmercifully and will not provide a radio service capable of competing on artistically level terms with the B.B.C.? Secondly, will he recognise that if he further involves the Press in the communications industry, a situation which is even now disquieting many people—the lack of a wide variety of information sources—will be worsened? Will he look into this question seriously before he agrees to the proposition of the involvement of local newspapers in commercial local radio stations?

Mr. Chataway: As to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I am afraid that there is a considerable misconception on his part and on the part of the hon.

Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) in relation to the proposals for a national channel. It was suggested from a number of sources, and was very seriously considered whether in addition to the structure I have proposed today there should also be a national channel. There were arguments in favour of that. The principal argument against it was that it could have unacceptable implications for the national Press. It is for that reason that I come forward with a proposal for local stations only, of course, in a national network as they would be.
As to the involvement of the Press, the White Paper circumscribes the situation in which local papers may have a controlling interest in local radio stations and would, I think, therefore prevent the spread of any undesirable monopoly. I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that this White Paper is diversifying the sources of information and I believe it is as important that there should be alternative sources of news in radio as it is that there should be alternative sources in the Press and television.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to see that the local radio gives truly local representation to the Lincolnshire area, which does not presently happen with I.T.V.?

Mr. Chataway: I will bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what consultations he has had in preparing these proposals with the Newspaper Society, the N.U.J. and working journalists? Would he also accept that the admirable standards set by the B.B.C. in its new local radio stations are standards upon which we must insist now and in the future?

Mr. Chataway: I have had full consultations with the National Union of Journalists and the Newspaper Society. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is much in the B.B.C. local stations which is worthy of support and development.

Sir J. Rodgers: While welcoming this statement, may I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify one point? Under this new system of the 60 local stations, will there be opportunities for a national hook-up among these stations at peak listening periods?

Mr. Chataway: They will be in a network, but I do not envisage that local stations would for any significant period of time switch over to a national sustaining service. I think it will be found that the local stations will not in their own self-interest wish to do so.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Since presumably this will entail legislation, could the right hon. Gentleman give any indication to the House when he expects the legislation to be forthcoming, this Session, next Session, or whenever it may be? Like the rest of the House, I have had only minutes to look at this White Paper, which we will all wish to study. Does it not appear that local newspapers with a substantial circulation in an area of coverage will have the right to participate? Can that not mean in certain areas with a population of, say, half a million to a million, which I suppose will be the target or the average, the local evening papers, already reasonably prosperous, will have the right to participate whereas the local weekly newspaper with a circulation of 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000, which will be most prejudiced by the local advertisements, will have no such right? Might there not be wholesale slaughter of weekly local newspapers as a result? I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a final view but perhaps he will look at this and make a statement to the House.

Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his measured reaction to these proposals. The legislation will not be introduced in this Session. It is not for me to say whether it will be introduced in the next Session. The right hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point on the right of the Press to be involved in local stations. It must depend upon the definition one gives to "circulation which is significant" in relation to the transmission area of the station. But the intention would be to ensure that any newspaper which could be significantly affected by the introduction of commercial radio should have the opportunity of participating. I shall bear the right hon. Gentleman's points in mind.

Mr. Wilson: Lest the right hon. Gentleman's opening words in reply to me become a legend, may I point out to him that I did not give a measured reaction to his proposals. The measured reaction was given on behalf of my right

hon. and hon. Friends by my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) in very careful, cautious and measured terms.
On the last point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman which he has undertaken to look into more closely, is he aware that the two concepts he has used may not come to the same thing? He has just said, if newspapers are "significantly affected", whereas the White Paper says, if they have a significant circulation in the area. They are two different things. Newspapers could be "significantly affected" and destroyed without having a significant part of the circulation in the area.

Mr. Chataway: I do not accept that the impact of commercial radio on the local Press is likely to be as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence pointing in the other direction. The point which the right hon. Gentleman raises has to do with the definition given by the Authority to "significant". We shall think about that further. If I wrongly detected a difference between the somewhat hysterical reaction of the hon. Member for Barons Court and the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I apologise to him.

Mr. Haselhurst: How local will be the stations which emerge from my right hon. Friend's proposals in the White Paper? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the system which will emerge from the arrangements which he has outlined will be more nearly local than metropolitan?

Mr. Chataway: My proposals give the Independent Broadcasting Authority the opportunity of developing really local stations. The extent to which they are able to serve small communities will depend upon their ability to attract audiences. But with the possibility of up to 60 stations being set up it is conceivable that cities with populations of between 100,000 and 150,000 will be served.

Mr. Whitehead: Bearing in mind the Minister's remark to my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the debate in the Conservative Party about commercial television in 1953 contained many serious reservations and their absence today is,


we think, a sad commentary on the Conservative Party? There are no objections by right hon. and hon. Members opposite to many of the proposals in the White Paper.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman three short, inter-related questions? Is the new I.B.A. to be financed wholly by contributions from the companies? There is nothing about that matter in paragraph 4 of the White Paper. Secondly, are the franchises for the rolling contracts to be made as a result of public tenders in view of the I.T.A.'s bad record in making people live up to their promises? Thirdly, did the right hon. Gentleman's Department carry out any surveys about the possible effect of transfers of advertising, particularly local newspaper classified and display advertising, to commercial radio?

Mr. Chataway: The Authority will be financed by contributions from the companies, with no subsidy from the Government. We shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's suggestion concerning public tenders. We made exhaustive investigations in many quarters concerning advertising revenue and looked at such precedents as there were which certainly did not suggest that commercial radio was always a disadvantage to local newspapers. There were many instances in which the evidence seemed to point in the other direction.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot proceed further with this matter today.

ST. VINCENT (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY)

Sir John Rodgers: I have to report that the delegation, given leave of absence by the House on 17th December last year, to visit St. Vincent and, on behalf of the House, to present a parliamentary library has discharged its duty. The delegation consisted of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), a senior clerk of the House, Mr. Donald Limon, and myself as leader.
The gift of the library was intended, as the letter from you, Mr. Speaker, to

the Speaker of the House of Assembly in St. Vincent stated, to be a symbol of the Parliamentary tradition cherished by the people of our two countries and to mark St. Vincent's attainment of complete internal self-government and associated status with the United Kingdom within the Commonwealth. I was requested by the Speaker of the House of Assembly in St. Vincent, on behalf of himself and the whole Assembly, to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your letter.
Our delegation was received every where with the utmost warmth, friendship and courtesy, not only by the Speaker, but by the Governor, the Premier, several of his Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and by elected and nominated members equally.
The presentation ceremony took place on 11th February and was a deeply moving experience for us all. While we were in St. Vincent we were able to see both the windward and leeward sides of the island and to talk with officials and the ordinary people up and down the island. We learned a great deal about the difficult problems facing that small country which relies so much on its main crop, bananas, and to a decreasing extent on the other staple product, arrowroot, for which the island is famous.
With a rapidly increasing population, there is an urgent need for the island to diversify its industry and especially to develop tourism. In neighbouring areas, such as Barbados and St. Lucia, we saw how much tourism, in its widest application, can mean to a country such as this and we were delighted that our visit coincided with a visit by the Chairman of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. We must never forget, Mr. Speaker, that it is to this country, with which they have been associated for so long, that they look for advice and help, both public and private. I hope that we shall never let them down.
The House of Assembly is a small but lively parliamentary body and, judging by the number of strangers present, our visit aroused considerable interest. The Premier, Mr. Milton Cato, informed us that he would be printing the speeches made at the handing over ceremony, with appropriate photographs, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when you receive your copy


you will approve of what was said on that occasion.
It gives me the utmost pleasure today to convey the greetings of the Premier and other dignitaries of St. Vincent to their fellow Parliamentarians here.
After leaving St. Vincent, we were privileged to pay brief visits to St. Lucia and Barbados. Again, we met the Speakers of the two Assemblies there, the Governors and Ministers. I am sure that all of us came away grateful to the House for providing us with the opportunity of visiting these most friendly and beautiful islands. One thing above all others was obvious, namely, the warm and genuine friendly feelings between our countries and the trust which they repose in us.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his report, to acknowledge the greetings which he has conveyed to the House and to thank him and his colleagues for the excellent way in which they carried out the mission entrusted to them.

BILL PRESENTED

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL

Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, supported by Mr. Secretary Maudling, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Carr, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Sir John Eden, Mr. Michael Alison, and Mr. Paul Dean presented a Bill to amend the law relating to benefit under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 and to certain benefits under the National Insurance Act 1965 and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965; to increase the penalties for failure to pay contributions under the said Acts of 1965; to abolish local advisory committees under the said Act of 1966; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee: reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.31 p.m.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As the House knows, the aviation industry in this country, and, indeed, in the world, has been going through a period of very rapid change, some of which is reflected in the various Clauses in this Bill. In particular there has been a blurring of the distinction between scheduled and charter services. At this particular moment we seem to be in a period of the cycle when capacity has got ahead of demand in international airlines, and thereby has provided a strain on their profits. This is one of the matters we have to take into consideration.
Because the United Kingdom is one of the few countries which has a multiplicity of airlines and in this much regulated industry there are problems of regulation, there is the need for the industry structure and the regulatory machinery to move with the times. We have had for the last few years, particularly since the completion of the Edwards Report, a period of uncertainty in civil aviation which I believe both sides of the House would now like to see brought to an end. We have had an occasion earlier to thank Sir Ronald Edwards for the very considerable help he and his Committee gave in dealing with these problems. The Committee produced three main recommendations. First, the Civil Aviation Authority; second, the Airways Board—and this Bill deals with both of them; the third recommendation which it made was that a second force airline should be established. I made a statement on 3rd


August on this subject, and a second force airline is now in being, but I shall come back to this no doubt rather controversial subject during my speech.
In the civil aviation context the Civil Aviation Authority has two main aspects. It reflects the fact that airlines are increasingly operating in a single environment. There are, indeed, very close links between the economics and the financial health of the airlines and the safety of their operations, and between operational safety, airworthiness, air traffic control, and navigational services. It does not, I think, make sense to try to regulate all these different things in different compartments and this is why the Civil Aviation Authority is, I believe, very much needed at this moment.
It is, of course, a constitutional innovation. The key point perhaps is that we are in this Bill hiving off a regulatory function. Ministers remain responsible to Parliament for policy, but detailed decision rests with the Authority. Clause 3 is the key to the new relationship because it sets out the broad objectives which the authority should pursue, and provides for more detailed guidance to be given from time to time in writing, subject to approval by Parliament on affirmative Resolution.
There are three broad objectives. The first brings together four elements, the importance of satisfying all substantial sections of the market, the importance of low fares so as to bring air travel within the reach of the widest public, the importance of safety, and the importance of an economic return for a sound industry.
The second of the three objectives provides for opportunities to be given to the second force airline, these opportunities to be defined more precisely in the guidance.
The third objective is, of course, the balance of payments and the contribution to our national economy, and in this I include the importance of the regions within that framework, but this third objective is, I think necessarily, subordinate to the other two, and the balance of payments cannot override safety.
In the opening words of Clause 3(1) and (2) I think it is made perfectly clear that the authority will have discretion in following the objectives and the guidance and this, I think, is correct because it

is essentially a task of balancing and reconciling different strands of policy which may sometimes pull in different directions. It would, perhaps, be attractive to some people if one could resolve every conflict in advance, but if we were to try to do that we would in effect be putting the industry in a straitjacket and it would be quite impossible even for the collective wisdom of Parliament to foresee today what the situation may well be in a year or two or three years' time, and, therefore, the only alternative to allowing the authority this discretion is for the Government themselves to do the job and I believe that this is not the wish of Parliament at this stage.
It also follows that the objectives and the guidance, which will be in general terms, mainly about economic considerations, are not suited to ultimate decision by the courts. Appeals, therefore, must lie with the Secretary of State, and I think here with the last Administration, we depart from Sir Ronald Edwards Committee's own recommendation.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Unfortunate.

Mr. Noble: It may be unfortunate, but I think that when one is dealing with appeals on economic grounds these are things with which the Secretary of State can deal and with which the courts find it very difficult to deal.
Nor can the grounds of appeal be limited to consistency with policy since, as I was saying earlier, to try to give policy sufficient precision for this to operate would inevitably be almost impossible. However, it is not the Government's intention that they should regularly substitute their decision for that of the authority. We have seen perhaps rather too much of this in aviation history recently. The Secretary of State's policy, when considering appeals, will be to uphold the decision of the authority unless there are clearly major reasons for departing from it.
Then on the question of guidance, this will be mainly about economic matters. I do not mean, in saying this, that safety is unimportant. Far from it. The intention both of the Bill and, I think, the House is that safety is absolutely fundamental; but it is also relatively straightforward as far as policy is concerned.


I do not find it conceivable that the authority would allow economic considerations to override safety.
The guidance will be set out in writing, probably in a White Paper, nearer the time when the Authority is set up in the early part of 1972, and time will be allowed for discussion. It may, however, be helpful to the House if I say now what sort of guidance the Government have in mind to give when the time comes.
There can be no argument about the guidance that should be given on safety matters. We shall stress the need for safety standards—whether of airlines, aircraft construction and maintenance, or in the operation of aerodromes—matching the highest standards achieved anywhere in the world.
In running the National Air Traffic Control Service, which under the Bill becomes the joint responsibility of the Authority and the Secretary of State for Defence, the Authority will be required to have due regard for the interests of military and civil users, including general aviation interests, so as to ensure the best use of our limited air space.
The guidance which will apply to the granting of air transport licences and the regulation of fares and charges is of particular importance. The Authority will be asked to allocate licences so as to bring about the greatest benefit to the nation in terms of the objectives set out in Clause 3 of the Bill. We want to see the industry increasing its share of the world's civil aviation air transport market in so far as this can be done profitably. The industry has a great part to play in fostering the development of our export trade, including the bringing of tourists to this country.
In licensing I do not consider the Authority should reserve any particular type of service, whether scheduled or chartered, exclusively to public or independent airlines, or indeed impose any set balance as between the public and private sectors. We do, however, want to see more than one British airline engaging, or at least being ready to compete, in each type of operation, even though the entry of additional airlines may sometimes need to be carefully controlled in order to avoid wasteful fragmentation of effort. It follows, therefore, that airlines, whether public or

independent, should where possible be given the opportunity of developing both their scheduled and non-scheduled services in line with the development of the market. This is just as important to the Air Corporations as it is to the independents, since most of their major foreign competitors have this freedom.
We want to see the rules covering the sale of seats on a bulk or wholesale basis, whether on scheduled or non-scheduled services, brought up to date and simplified. Our guidance will, therefore, be that restrictions should be kept to the minimum necessary to ensure that there is reasonable capacity for those who wish to buy individual seats on scheduled services at the public fare.
The guidance will set out the opportunities that should be given to the second force airline in rather more detail than was done in the statement of 3rd August, 1970. The Government, in making certain routes available to Caledonian/B.U.A., have had to do what the Edwards Report intended should be done by the Civil Aviation Authority. But once the Authority is set up it will take over the task of deciding the future pattern of routes that will be needed to keep abreast of traffic growth.
Nobody would dispute that the Air Corporations should continue to be the principal providers of scheduled services. What has now been established is that Caledonian/B.U.A. should be the principal independent scheduled airline. The need to ensure that these airlines have the strength to compete effectively in the world civil air transport market must in general limit, at least for some years to come, the grant to other British airlines of licences to operate international scheduled services that they do not already operate.
There are severe practical limits to the scope for double designation. In the shorter term the opportunities will be confined mainly to the routes mentioned in the Edwards Report—the North Atlantic and perhaps a few places in Europe. Within these limits, however, the Authority should license more than one British airline to serve the same scheduled service route wherever in its judgment, first, the traffic will be sufficient to support such competing services within a reasonable time; second, the choice and standard of services available to the public are likely to be improved; and, third,


in the case of an international route, the aggregate share or the total traffic that is secured by the British airlines is likely to be increased to an extent that will more than offset any lasting disadvantages.
The Authority should accord to Caledonian/B.U.A., where practicable, a measure of preference over other airlines in the allocation of licences for new scheduled service routes, for routes on which double designation is desirable, or for charter operations where the number of British airlines needs for the time being to be restricted. The Authority should, however, in every case also take into account the effect of its decisions on the development of other airlines; it is not the Government's intention that there should be an automatic or complete preference.
The route patterns served by British airlines have grown to some extent haphazardly and do not always lend themselves to the greatest efficiency. This is especially true of regional air services within the United Kingdom. The Authority should examine from time to time, with the airlines concerned, whether scheduled service routes at home and abroad should be adjusted or reallocated among British airlines in order to rationalise any of their route networks. But routes should be transferred between airlines only where this would be likely to promote our main objectives.
In regulating domestic air services, the Authority should have regard to their place in the total internal transport system, and will keep in close touch with the Department of the Environment, so as to avoid competing investments that have no prospect of proving profitable. The Authority must take account of the contribution which air services may make to regional development. The Authority will also have the task of advising the Government and others concerned on the provision and development of aerodromes to match the development of air services.
The Bill sets out certain limitations as to the disclosure of commercially confidential information, but within these limits the Authority should publish promptly full statistical and other information about the industry and enterprises within it. In so far as it is for the Secretary of State to determine whether information should be disclosed,

he will favour the widest possible disclosure.
The functions which the Authority will assume are not at present financially self-supporting, but the intention is that they should become so, so that the annual grant in aid can be progressively reduced and finally dispensed with. This means that the Authority will be required in due course to recover from the airlines and other users the full cost of the navigational and ground services it provides. There are certain limitations to the progress that can be achieved: in particular the charges for certain navigational services are subject to international agreement. But within this limitation and bearing in mind that the Authority will be providing some services to the Government against payment, the Authority should as soon as possible recover out of its revenues the whole of its costs including the cost of capital, without further subventions from public funds. Provided agreement on navigational services is reached with the other countries concerned, the Authority should be in a position to be self-supporting not later than the financial year 1977–78.
The Bill to some extent sets out the division of functions between the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority, and it may be of help to the House if I summarise them shortly. The Government will remain responsible for international relations and also for matters concerning the environment, especially for aircraft noise.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The Minister says that the Government rather than the Department will be responsible for aircraft noise. Does this mean that this responsibility could be exercised by the Department for the Environment rather than by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Noble: I do not want to be drawn on a subject which we have already debated in this House. The question of the environment spills over into two or three different departments. I am not at this stage trying to give hard and fast rules about which particular department deals with which particular problem of the environment. We feel this method to be right because both the matters I have mentioned involve considerably


wider interest than simply civil aviation. It is, after all, only governments which can sign treaties.
There is then the problem of accident investigation.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Before my right hon. Friend turns to another matter, could he clear up one point? In using the term "international relations", does he include the negotiation of landing rights abroad as a matter for the Government or for the Authority?

Mr. Noble: Yes, that will be a matter for the Government. On the question of accident investigation, we accept the recommendation of the Edwards Committee that this should be kept separate from control of safety. I understand that this was the intention of the previous Government. The Government must be responsible for making any subordinate legislation which may arise. These are mainly questions of safety. The Government must retain the responsibility for the public bodies which already exist in this field, namely, the Authority itself, the British Airways Board and the British Airports Authority. The Government must also retain responsibility over matters of land use planning. Again, as with other problems involving the environment, a number of Ministers are often involved. Last of this catalogue, the Government clearly must remain responsible for policy formation.
It therefore follows that the Government must have powers of direction over the Authority in matters for which the Government remain responsible, but these essentially are reserve powers. The power of general direction contained in Clause 4(3), common to public body statutes, cannot override the general objectives in Clause 3(1); in other words, it cannot be used to upset what Parliament decides the objectives to be. The powers of particular direction in Clause 4(4) should not need to be used often, if at all, because the Authority and the Department will be working closely together.
Clause 20 provides for particulars of directions given to be published in the Authority's annual report so that we can all see how often—or, we hope, how rarely —these powers are used.

Mr. John Rankin: I find it difficult to grasp all the authorities mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Could he tell me whether, when these authorities become effective, their presence at the airport will slow down the entry of passengers into the aircraft or whether they will slow down the exit of passengers at the journey's end?

Mr. Noble: I very much hope that when the authorities of which the hon. Gentleman speaks have got into full swing they will do exactly the reverse of what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and that they will enable passengers and traffic in general to move more quickly rather than more slowly.

Mr. Rankin: Is that a promise?

Mr. Noble: I cannot say that is a promise. I cannot make a promise on behalf of a board that does not exist, but since the whole purpose of the Bill is to streamline an already considerably complicated system, one can hope with considerable confidence that this will be the result.
I should like to say a few words about the Air Registration Board which is being rechristened the Airworthiness Requirements Board. The fact that we have retained the initials A.R.B. at the specific request of Lord Kings Norton is a tribute to the success he and his fellow members have had over the last decade or more in creating a standard which is not only very high indeed in this country, but which is regarded internationally as most important. We hope that those concerned in future with airworthiness will be able to make an even greater contribution within the broader framework of the Authority.
A word or two about staff. When one undertakes a hiving off operation, inevitably there are some anxieties. The staff numbers 8,000, of whom about 7,500 are civil servants, and I should like to recall the undertakings which have already been made. Their conditions of employment will be at least as good as they are at present and we shall encourage development within the Civil Aviation Authority of a comprehensive system of staff consultation. This system has been provided for in Schedule 1 to the Bill.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Could my right hon. Friend say something about the composition of the new Airworthiness Requirements Board?


In the past the members of the Air Registration Board were drawn from people in aviation who had rendered great service to the country. Will this practice continue?

Mr. Noble: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I believe that the composition of the Board will be, if not exactly the same, drawn in a very similar way. It has been a great success story and we hope that it will so remain. The Department of Trade and Industry will retain only a small nucleus dealing with civil aviation and we do not intend to duplicate the Authority's activities.
In regard to the Airways Board, since our time for debate is short, I will simply say that this was a recommendation of the Edwards Committee which has been accepted broadly on both sides of the House—

Mr. Ian Mikardo: No.

Mr. Noble: With the exception of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo).

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: No.

Mr. Noble: And perhaps a few others. I said "broadly"; I did not say "totally". It is the result of a long debate which has been going on for a number of years about whether it would be more efficient and effective for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to merge into a single line. Sir Ronald Edwards, who looked into the matter with great care, felt—and I agree with him—that the only way of deciding this problem was to study it carefully for some time from the inside. Clause 39 requires the British Airways Board to look closely into the group's organisation and report its findings. It can if it wishes propose a complete integration of the Corporations, but this would need the approval of Parliament before any change as drastic as this were made. Any substantial changes in group organisation will in any case require the Secretary of State's consent and the Secretary of State may also give directions about group organisation.
I wish to pay tribute to the Boards and staffs of the Air Corporations, with whom we have discussed details of this Bill on which there has been a large measure of agreement. I am confident that when these provisions come into operation we shall have the wholehearted

support of all the people involved in the new organisation.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Could my right hon. Friend assure the House that this proposal will not mean that there will be such large numbers of people employed by the Board that this will cause difficulties to the Air Corporations in that there will be a heavy weight of bureaucracy interfering all the way down the line?

Mr. Noble: No. I think that I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on that point. We do not intend the Airways Board to reduplicate both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. The Board is much more in the nature of a holding company, and I guess that its staff would be extremely efficient but quite small.

Mr. Mikardo: May I raise a small and simple point, but one that intrigues me? As far as I know, this is the first Measure setting up this sort of public organisation in which there are Schedules —Schedules 1 and 8—laying down the composition and method of operation of the board and, in one case, the Authority, in which no qualifications are laid down for membership of the board. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why that is so?

Mr. Noble: I suspected that the hon. Member's small and simple point might not be quite so small and simple. He has much more experience than I have of studying Schedules to nationalised industry Bills. I do not know why the qualifications were not set out, but if the hon. Member is interested I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to answer him at the end of the debate.

Mr. Russell Kerr: You just have to to be a friend of the Government.

Mr. Noble: I told the House on 15th December that the major part of the routes to be transferred to Caledonian-British United Airways, in accordance with the statement of 3rd August, 1970, would consist of B.O.A.C.'s route to West Africa. Caledonian-B.U.A. will start to serve this route next Thursday, 1st April. The balance of the transfer will comprise B.O.A.C.'s service between London and Tripoli, together with the introduction, at a later date convenient to Caledonian-B.U.A., of services between Gatwick and Paris-Le Bourget.
In addition, the Government will no longer require the imposition of restrictions on the carriage of first-class traffic on Caledonian-B.U.A.'s services to East Africa. The effective dates have yet to be settled but it is likely that Caledonian-B.U.A. will start to serve Tripoli this summer and Paris either towards the end of this year or in the early part of 1972. The French and Libyan authorities have been informed. British United Airways have held for a number of years a licence permitting two services a day to Paris but this could not be used without a corresponding reduction in B.E.A.'s services. When Caledonian-B.U.A. is ready to start its service, B.E.A. will make way for them by relinquishing up to four daily frequencies to Le Bourget. The House will appreciate that this arrangement contributes not only to the strengthening of the "second force" airline, as envisaged in the statement of 3rd August, 1970, but also to an increase in competition in circumstances that should benefit the public by providing a choice not only of airlines but also of airports for travel to Paris.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Can the Minister tell the House the total amount of route revenue transfer that is now envisaged, involving the route transfer from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.? What is the total amount?

Mr. Noble: I am told that the total is exactly within the level that I gave to the House in August.

Mr. Huckfield: I wonder.

Mr. Noble: There are other routes which we looked at which would have been even more attractive to Caledonian-B.U.A. than those which have now been selected, but the impact on the Air Corporations and on the total national interest would have been disproportionately great. The measures which have now been decided are within the terms of the statement of 3rd August, 1970, including the value figure defined in that statement.
The Government do not intend any further transfer of routes in this context, and the powers under which the transfers are being made will be repealed by the Bill now before the House. Thereafter, only the Civil Aviation Authority will have the power to transfer a route from one airline to another—from any airline

to any other airline—in accordance with the objectives in Clause 3 and with the guidance given to it from time to time under subsection (2) of that Clause. This is a power that the Air Transport Licensing Board has had throughout, and I think that it is accepted on all sides that it is a necessary power to meet all manner of circumstances. This is in no way inconsistent with the assurances that I have given that no further transfers will be made from the Air Corporations to Caledonian-B.U.A. as part of this exercise.
All these measures are designed to strengthen our civil aviation industry for the difficult and perhaps highly competitive years ahead. We can look forward with great confidence to the part that they are able to play, based on their success in the past. I am sure that the House will wish the Bill well, and I therefore commend it.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, although in a very low tone, introduced the highly controversial topic of the hiving-off of more routes from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to the second force. The right hon. Gentleman must know that in introducing a major Measure of this kind it would be sensible to try to get a consensus of the House and not purposely to introduce this highly controversial topic, on which most hon. Members will now focus their minds and spend some time debating this afternoon, which will mean that in terms of the House's fully understanding and appreciating the contents of this major change the debate will not have served a useful purpose.
Is it not true that although the second force is now in being it has not yet legally received the routes? Is the question not subject to affirmative Orders of the House? The right hon. Gentleman has laid before the House an Order transferring routes to Kano, Lagos and Accra to Caledonian-B.U.A. from B.O.A.C., but that is subject to an affirmative Resolution that has not yet been debated. In that case, how is it that Caledonian-B.U.A.—as the Minister suggested—can commence operating on Thursday, 1st April?
Secondly, having announced that he is taking another route from B.O.A.C.— namely, the London-Tripoli route—when it was understood at the outset that the B.O.A.C. routes had all now been taken, and what remained was the possibility of a transfer of B.E.A. routes, from London to Paris, is not this really akin to a kick in the groin for B.O.A.C. when its position is already, to say the least, financially disturbing?
The right hon. Gentleman said that the total change, in terms of the routes to Kano, Lagos and Accra, and the Tripoli routes, including Paris—Le Bourget, to be transferred from B.O.A.C. to the second force is well within the £6 million annnal route revenue. That is not the point; the point is the profitability that flows from the routes.
Only last weekend B.O.A.C. announced that the routes taken from it accounted for a profit of £1½ million per year. I hope that I shall have time to deal with the question of the second force more fully in the context of the Bill.
The industry has waited a long time for this legislation. We established the Edwards Committee in July, 1967, and it reported in May, 1969. We then introduced a White Paper—Command 4213— in November, 1969, and the House and the aviation industry has had to wait until this Monday for the Bill. It is likely that four years will have elapsed from the first probe to the legislative act.

Sir A. V. Harvey: When discussing the long waiting period, will the right hon. Gentleman say why the House was not given the opportunity to discuss the Edwards Report?

Mr. Mason: I cannot take any responsibility for that. As the hon. Member knows, matters debated in the House are usually agreed through the usual channels, and I was not one of the spokesmen of the usual channels at that time.
The fact is that it will have taken four years for the recommendations to get on the Statute Book, and for all concerned— the Corporations, the Air Transport Licensing Board, the Air Registration Board, the thousands of civil servants, the independent airlines and the many workers whose future is dependent on this

vast industry—it is time for this uncertainty to be ended. Also, because of the many imponderables confronting our civil aviation industry, the debate is timely, and the creation of the new Civil Aviation Authority and the Airways Board fits into a time scale which may well enable all the expertise jointly and more quickly to tackle some of the major issues troubling the industry.
In that context we have only to think of the future fleet requirements of B.O.A.C., B.E.A. and the independent airlines; the introduction of the 747s; the wrangles taking place about the airbus; the TriStar and the Concorde; the Rolls-Royce problem; the dilemma of the third London airport; the increasing traffic movements, especially over London; air traffic control problems and, within a decade, the advent of short takeoff and landing aircraft.
Fortunately, and credit is due to them, the Corporations have both had good years, but the worries of the future appear in their latest annual reports. The June, 1970, report of B.O.A.C. seems to sum it up best. It stated:
Industry-wide costs of production are rising, revenue yield falling, both trends being likely to continue for some time to come. It is thus an industry faced with over-production, rising unit costs and falling revenue rates.
In view of the statement at the weekend, how right the report has proved to be. There are others, both on the Continent and in America, faced with similar and in some cases more worrying futures. So, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the fact must be faced that air transport generally is entering one of the regular cycles when there is every probability that capacity will exceed demand for quite an appreciable period.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. Therefore, will he accept that B.O.A.C. has made it plain that the profit fall-off it has recently had is largely due to such factors as troubles with the cargo centre, the non-operation of the 747, with consequent loss of revenue, industrial troubles of various kinds, and a massive loss of revenue resulting from the postal strike; and that, however farsighted he may consider the Corporation to have been, some of these factors could not have been foreseen six months ago?

Mr. Mason: I do not think that the hon. Member is being fair to B.O.A.C. It did not then visualise that the 747 would be grounded for so long, with loss of revenue. It did not visualise the trouble in industry at the time, the continuing depression in the United States market and, above all, the recession which has been brought about here since the return of the present Government. So the hon. Gentleman is not being fair to B.O.A.C.
One cannot help but be struck by the pace of change in civil aviation. The industry has moved through the era of turbo jets, pure jets, and then the wide-bodied aircraft. It is an industry which, during the last decade, has been doubling its output every five or six years. This has been quite exceptional expansion. Now the cycle is on the downturn—and, paradoxically, with the advent of jumbo-jets and, possibly, TriStars and Concordes. All these aircraft necessitate heavy investment at a time of some hesitancy about the future.
It is also an amazing industry, as is witnessed by the changes every decade technologically, commercially and even the changing face of the airlines. The periodic sizeable investment decisions, too, have a frightening aspect when one realises that a factor of consumer appeal or disapproval, which cannot be so easily appraised, can determine the payload, and hence the success or failure of the investment. As Ronnie Edwards suggests, the industry exists to serve the consumer, who by his choice lets the industry know in no uncertain fashion if he was or is being ignored.
Speaking of the consumer, we have noticed recently that the battle for long-haul bulk travel and long-haul inclusive tours has begun. Both of the Corporations, Caledonian-B.U.A. and the other independents are all competing. It is a big market, and fierce competition has now developed between our own carriers within Europe and beyond. As this fight grows for the overseas holidaymaker and the exploitation of bulk travel, it will be incumbent on the Civil Aviation Authority to protect the consumers and see that they benefit. Licensing the inclusive tour operators should increase the protection for the public against any unscrupulous or financially unsound firms, and I hope that that will be done.
Speaking more specifically about the Bill, I want, as did the right hon. Gentleman, to praise Ronnie Edwards and his Committee. We have done this many times before, but it must be most gratifying to them all to see so much of their work coming to fruition and so many of their recommendations being accepted. Their Report was thorough and comprehensive and they certainly had scope in the terms of reference. The Committee produced a survey in depth, including recommendations for sweeping constitutional changes. This was followed by our White Paper, which embodied most of the Committee's proposals.
Command 4213 is a charter for the fuller development of all our civil aviation forces, and the Bill is modelled to some extent on that charter. We visualised a new major powerful regulatory authority covering the whole of our civil aviation transport, and an airways board strong enought to marry the kith-and-kin services of the Corporations, with powers, if necessary, to effect a merger. That was the aim of our White Paper, and I hope that we shall get an assurance from the Government that they, too, have that goal in mind.
With regard to the Civil Aviation Authority, the need for more purposive regulations is clear. Our record of safety in the air is quite good. The British Airline Pilots Association has some reservation about safety being subject to economic pressures and would like the Government to consider the creation of a separate aviation authority. That is a point that might well be worth considering in Committee.
We are pioneers in dealing with the problem of aircraft noise. In 1966 I chaired an international conference at Lancaster House, when we managed to get an agreement to develop less noisy aero-engines and to grant airworthiness certificates only if the aircraft complied with the new perceived noise decibel rating—and, of course, the RB211 was the engine which we hoped would start to make that break-through.
The record of the Corporations for stability and regularity of air services is unquestionable and compares with the best in the world, but this is an international industry necessitating diplomatic contacts at all levels in Government and in the industry itself in order to establish


a network of regular airline services throughout the world. This subject therefore requires some Government involvement.
Our licensing system has been much criticised, and I do not blame the Air Transport Licensing Board. The Board has been hamstrung from its inception with restrictive terms of reference, and successive Ministers have caused havoc with various appeals. Licensing, therefore, is urgently in need of reform.
The Air Registration Board—a body possibly without parallel—built up a fine national and international reputation for airworthiness. Lord Kings Norton has a magnificent team, but it is right to say that the Air Registration Board—now being newly named the Airworthiness Requirements Board—should be under the umbrella of the Civil Aviation Authority. It is still keeping a measure of independence within the Authority, but I know that it is expressing concern at its loss of autonomy. It would be good for the A.R.B. to be under the umbrella of the Authority.
All the independent airlines must be registered with the Civil Aviation Authority, and must give that Authority the fullest information of their finances and all their operations.
The Authority, with all these regulatory powers, is a major constitutional innovation and is bound to be a new form of corporation—8,000 persons and a board of mainly, I would hope, aviation personnel led by a strong chairman. There is now a chance for many within the Civil Service to cease shuffling and gradually settle within the Authority and develop aviation expertise, a chance for many who were previously compartmentalised in their respective aviation boards and councils to encourage cross-chance to regulate all our civil aviation fertilisation and make the Authority all the richer because of it. There is a transport industry for the first time.
Having said that, it must have power. At the moment the Bill is riddled with Ministerial interference; and if it stays that way the Authority will be stifled and frustrated from the outset. What real authority is to be granted to the Civil Aviation Authority? To what extent, how easily, and in what spheres, can it be politically overruled'? Time after

time the Secretary of State may "order" or "require", may give general directions. There is interference and interference throughout the Bill. Much of that will have to be curtailed; and this will be one of our objectives in Committee.
Second, one of the Civil Aviation Authority's tasks will be, as the Minister suggested, the allocation of routes, because now it is the licensing authority. Will paragraph 33 of the Civil Aviation White Paper apply when it comes to reallocation of routes, when it comes to licensing the second carrier on a scheduled route? I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will particularly answer this question, because in paragraph 33 we laid down certain conditions that had to be met.
I quote from that paragraph:
… the Authority will need to satisfy itself that three conditions are met.
This is dealing with licensing a second carrier on a scheduled route.
First, the applicant airline should have the skill and resources needed to mount an effective service and make it viable within a reasonable period. Secondly, the designation of an independent airline on a route already served by B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. should not unduly impair the Corporations' services, or their capacity to meet the financial obligations laid upon them by the Government. Thirdly, the net increase in traffic gained by the two carriers together and the resulting benefits to consumers and to the balance of payments should more than offset any diseconomies.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let us know whether that will still apply.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the statement which he made towards the end of last year when he said that a once-for-all transfer of routes to Caledonian-B.U.A. would be effected and that there would be none after that. I take it from what he said during the course of his opening remarks that that is true, that that will bind the Authority, and that there will be no more transfer of routes from the Corporations to the independent airline.

Mr. Noble: We have made this point often, but I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misrepresent anything I have said. I have consistently said that this is a once-for-all operation on this exercise. If the right hon. Gentleman studies the Bill he will see that it is also true that the Civil Aviation Authority may in the future want to rationalise


routes at home or overseas and it has this power. The Secretary of State has made this point quite clear on a number of occasions.

Mr. Mason: It was pleasing that the right hon. Gentleman got to his feet, but it was not so pleasing that he started wriggling in his reply. I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will spell out particularly to what extent that once-for-all transfer that the Minister so specifically mentioned and stood by in past debates may effectively bind the Authority—that there will be no transfer of routes by the new licensing authority from the Corporations across to Caledonian-B.U.A.
This new-found second force of Caledonian-B.U.A., based on what we described as a disgraceful, despicable act, may have a very limited life. These pinched routes from the Corporations— £6 million worth of route revenue now and we already know from B.O.A.C. that £1½ million of profit per year is involved —have been taken away without compensation. We have already decreed that these routes will be transferred back to the Corporation on our return to office and, because they have profited in the meantime, they will be transferred without compensation.
The Minister had better clear the air about this force. The second force is not to work against the Corporations. We accept that some competition is inevitable, but it would be farcical and ridiculous to allow a war to develop which would weaken all. The Authority and the Board are being established with a view to stablising and strengthening the whole industry and not to create a war between the two.
Also, I hope that the Civil Aviation Authority will, under its powers of licensing all the independents, take note of paragraphs 8 to 11 on pages 4 and 5 of the last Report of the Air Transport Licensing Board, dealing with pricing policy and traffic regulations. The A.T.L.B. strongly recommends that the
… authority should require the licensed airlines to produce financial results for individual routes (or groups of routes) and types of traffic on a common accounting basis which the authority should determine
and
that this financial information, on which

the tariff decisions will be largely based "should be made public". So far the independent airlines in particular have refused. The Civil Aviation Authority must remove that impediment.
The Report also spells out in paragraph 15 why there is dissatisfaction with the appeals procedure. The Minister mentioned this. In paragraph 31 the Board describes the "lamentably confused situation" and uncertainty of planning for the future by the airlines under the present licensing system.
Therefore, we hope to see disclosure of all information, a better appeals procedure, and a licensing technique which is designed to further the developments of British civil aviation.
On 18th March, when dealing more fully with our White Paper, I said this in the House:
The other main thing that the Government will do to strengthen the industry is to set up a Civil Aviation Authority that will bring together all aspects of the regulation of the industry under a single roof … By bringing the various regulatory functions together in this way, we hope to establish a body"—

Mr. F. A. Burden: 18th March?

Mr. Mason: Yes, 18th March.

Mr. Burden: 1969.

Mr. Mason: No—1970; I am sorry. I continue reading:
By bringing the various regulatory functions together in this way, we hope to establish a body that will build up a breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding of the industry such as will enable it to guide and assist the industry's development in the best possible way. Under the broad guidance of a statement of Government policy, which it will be bound to observe, the Authority will have a considerable discretion in its day-to-day decisions, and our intention is that it should be left to get on with its job.
I emphasise the last sentence—"to get on with its job", not to be, as the Bill suggests, subject to constant Ministerial interference.
Within that broad guidance we would hope that the Authority would benefit the interests of the consumer, obtain an economic return on investment, have rational pricing policies, conduct safe operations, provide good working conditions for those in the industry, obtain greater earnings from abroad and so


strengthen our balance of payments and make a greater contribution to the national economy.
We want an Authority with the freedom, within a broad Ministerial directive—that is, a formal statement of policy—to plan all our civil aviation services, have authority to co-ordinate all the participating bodies in the industry, and make a greater assault upon the rich and expanding opportunities in the world markets. These, therefore, generally are the guidelines that we would like to see, to allow the Civil Aviation Authority the powers to plan for sensible growth of the whole of our civil aviation industry —the Corporations, the independents and our regional services.
What of the British Airways Board? Again, on 18th March last year I said:
In the public sector, we propose to set up an Airways Board whose task will be to strengthen B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. in every way, including all forms of co-ordination up to and including complete merger if that turns out to be in the national interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 438.]
Sir Ronald Edwards suggested a holdings board over the two Corporations, operating a light rein. We visualised a stronger board that would force the pace of marrying common services. I hope this is what the Government have in mind. Sir Ronald Edwards levelled a few criticisms against the Corporations, especially mentioning their low productivity record and also pointing out that although their foreign earnings were high, they could be higher. Above all—and this was stressed in our White Paper—there was too much overlapping and duplication of common services.
So whilst one recognises that the Air Corporations Committee has been paving the way, it would seem that there is great scope for examining the possibilities of central administration marketing, publicity, catering, transport and hotels, the handling of inclusive tours, computer development and industrial relations, route rationalisation, the planning and operating of the route networks of the two Corporations in a more integrated manner, and, flowing from that, common equipment purchasing, common engineering services and maintenance.
On the latter point, the airlines on the Continent are perhaps making more

progress in this regard than we are. Two consortia—K.S.S.U. covering K.L.M., S.A.S. and Swissair, and the Atlas consortium of Air France, Alitalia, Lufthansa, Sabena and Iberia—are already perfecting these procedures.
One worrying aspect of this question is the likelihood of rationalising and integrating the fleets of the Corporations because not many, if any, new British airframes are evident, and it may well mean in the future that the Corporations will always have to buy foreign aircraft, and, with the mess that the Government have landed us in with the RB211, it may be with foreign engines as well.
The possible exception is Concorde. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will not thrust this down the throat of B.O.A.C. against their commercial wisdom, particularly at a cost of more than £12 million per aircraft and doubtful commercial viability. I hope also that they will not ask B.O.A.C. to take it at that price, anticipate refusal and give the Government an excuse to cancel and blame the Corporation for it. If in B.O.A.C's judgment it is a commercial risk, and if the Government think it is important to get Concorde in commercial service, then the Government must be prepared to take that into consideration when settling their financial objectives and their rate of return on net assets.
On the British Airways Board, once more it would appear from the Bill that this Board, like the Authority, will be subject to too much Secretary of State interference. The Secretary of State is mentioned on more than 50 occasions in the section dealing with the Board. There is no clear indication in the Bill of the powers of the Board—the light rein or the powers to control—or is it that the Government are waiting until the whole of the Corporations' services have been reviewed before they determine that?
What is also most disturbing is that within the Civil Aviation Authority's functions in Clause 3 there is a duty to recognise the second force but no such duty to recognise the Corporations. Does not that seem foolish to the Government? Why is it? Also, although it is enshrined in the Bill that the Chairmen of the Corporations are to be members of the


Board, do I take it that no other member of the Corporations will be on the Board?
What also of consumer interests and trade union representation on the Authority and the Board? I hope the Government will also take note of the chapter on human relations in our White Paper and that when the Civil Aviation Authority is satisfying that an airline has adequate financial resources, competent management and the ability to operate safely before a licence is granted, it will also be satisfied about industrial relations and will not grant a licence unless there are also proper negotiating procedures and consultative machinery established.
Once the Civil Aviation Authority is in being, it will be necessary to have a national trade union and management forum of equal importance. This should be the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. This, as we all know, is not fully representative of the industry at present. But if we are to have planned orderly growth of all our civil aviation transport, then the Civil Aviation Authority should be advised at the outset to recognise the National Joint Council and decree that all its airlines become members of it.
I note that the Government will retain certain powers—the right hon. Gentlemen went through them briefly—of investigating accidents, the international negotiations on traffic rights, the exercise of control over aircraft noise, pollution and the siting of aerodromes. That is enough. Within the context of our White Paper and what I have said today, we hope that the Government will lay down the objectives and policy for the industry as a whole and see that the Authority carries them out with the minimum of interference.
Finally, many airlines of the world are in difficulties at the moment. Four American carriers between them have lost £72 million and have laid off nearly 10,000 staff. This downturn of the aviation cycle may not yet have reached the bottom of the trough. Fortunately, because of a forward planning and good management, our major carrier, B.O.A.C., and, to some extent, B.E.A., may just avoid such a calamitous position. Above all, we have to stop this fragmented and

at times buccaneering approach in our civil air transport industry. The Authority and the Board should enable us to do this.
With that in mind, we shall do all we can to make them both effective, powerful and, for the prizes there are to be gained in the expansion of civil aviation, also help them both to succeed.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: If I may start as I shall not necessarily continue, I should like to express agreement with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and with the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) that there has been too much uncertainty in civil aviation for far too long. Indeed, I well remember the morning of 26th July, 1967, when the then President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) came and told us that the Edwards Committee was to be set up. It fell to me to greet this announcement with modified rapture from the then Opposition Front Bench—rapture which was qualified partly by the fact that there had been an all-night sitting the night before and also because it seemed to me, as it still seems, that the Committee had been given very negative terms of reference, and I feared—events have now borne this out—that much time would be wasted as a result.
I should now like to say to my hon. Friend—though he may not detect it from all that I may say—that I welcome this Bill and, if I may give an unqualified welcome to anything, I give it to his statement that the transfer of routes to Caledonian-B.U.A. is now complete. I do not understand the churlish objections which the right hon. Member for Barnsley put forward. If there is any logic in the point that he seems to be adopting, it is that he would like the route pattern to be frozen for ever and no transfer made in the name of rationalisation from Caledonian-B.U.A. to another operator. I do not believe that is what he means, and I feel sure that on reflection he will see that his attitude is a bit silly.
My hon. Friend will know that his Bill has not been greeted with roars of applause throughout the industry. I hope he will not take it amiss if, in some


respects, we regard it as a basis for negotiation. I take as an example Clause 4(4), which, to my relief, my right hon. Friend said was unlikely to be much used. Anyone who has read Clause 4(4) will, no doubt, say "Hear hear" to that, for it really is one of the nastiest bits of terminological sludge that I have seen for a long time. It reminds me of the good old days of the Post Office Bill. Here is what it says:
The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Authority, give to the Authority directions requiring the Authority to secure that a particular thing which it is doing is no longer done by it, or that a particular thing which it has power to do and is not doing is done or not done by it, if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to give such directions …
Without inflating my own powers of draftsmanship, I reckon to be able to offer the Secretary of State a more economical set of words which will achieve much the same purpose—something along these lines:
The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Authority, and if he considers it appropriate, give the Authority specific directions …
Here and there throughout the Bill— I mean no offence to the draftsman—one comes across other little monsters from the black lagoon of parliamentary sludge, and I very much hope that we shall be able to get rid of some of them in Committee. But that is by the way; it is not my main grievance against the Bill, though I thought it right to mention it.
Now, some questions for my right hon. Friend, the answers to which, I think, will be helpful to the House. Again, on terminology, we find in Clause 3(1)(b) the curious phrase "charter and other terms". What does that mean, and why is it phrased in that way? Is it because there is some difficulty in defining "schedule"? Indeed, why are those words necessary at all?
Now, a more substantial query, perhaps: Why is there so little mention in the Bill of operational safety? I can find no reference to the A.O.C. Is it because the 1949 Act powers are thought to be sufficient to cover the present situation, or is there some other reason which has escaped me?
Again, on terminology, what is meant by the words in the sidenote to Clause 26,

provision for persons of accommodation in aircraft"?
Is there some curious idea behind it that people might live in the disused hulks of unwanted jumbos or something of that kind, or is it a somewhat oblique reference to travel organisers or tour operators? If the latter, what is wrong with just those words?
Dodging about a bit, I now take up a point raised by the right hon. Member for Barnsley regarding the attitude which the Bill reveals—or, rather, conceals—on the publication of statistics. There seems to be a lot of power to call for statistics and some limitation regarding what statistics may be released to anyone, whether a private person or a public body, but there is little to indicate precisely what positive approach will be adopted to the publication of statistical material. I do not necessarily believe that the more statistics are published the wiser people will become—I see no direct connection between the two—but it is generally recognised that more statistics could with advantage be made public.
Next, am I right in thinking—I apologise if I heat the blood of the right hon. Member for Barnsley by asking this —that under Clause 40(1)(b) there are powers which could be so used as, in effect, to denationalise the Air Corporations, one at a time or both together, on a B.P. basis or in some other way? I only want to know, and I hone that that notion will not overheat the Front Bench opposite.
Finally, what is the situation now as regards the B.E.A. second tranche, the £12½ million—if I recall the figure aright—which it was entitled to claim if it found that, in operation, it was unable to secure the return on the Trident which might at one time have been hoped?
I come now to a major omission from the Bill which worries me, namely, the very sparing reference to airport policy. I recognise at once that policy in major areas must be made by the Government, and it may well be that airport planning and location is one such, but I should have thought that the Civil Aviation Authority could make an important contribution to the Government's chances of getting a national airport plan right. Ought there not to be a duty put upon the Authority to take part in that?
If the rumours circulating at the weekend about "No airport for Cublington" are right—I should welcome that—and if the decision is to be taken in stages in this way, I should not necessarily say that that was wrong, but I should very much hope—I hope, also, that the Civil Aviation Authority might be able to help in a process of this kind—that those responsible for taking decisions on which a national airport plan will be based would first recognise that there is no reason to suppose that the statistics on which the planners have been working hitherto are wholly accurate. There is considerable evidence of a falling away in the rate of growth of both passenger movement and freight movement by air, and the pattern of passenger movement may well alter if the United States and the North American continent open up as a major holiday outlet, replacing, perhaps, the Costa Brava and the Mediterranean. This could happen, and it would have considerable relevance to national airport planning.
To take a broader point, it would seem wrong to take any action, if not absolutely unavoidable, which would have the effect of shifting this country's centre of gravity further to the east. We have lived far too long with the great weight of national attention, effort and growth on the South-East. If we have an opportunity to do anything to redress this imbalance, we should take it. There is a strong case for saying that the further to the west of London a new international airport is built, the more likely it is to be in the right place.
Further, if we are to economise in projects for which enormous sums of money are needed, it is very much to everyone's advantage that we should take what profit we can from the infrastructure which exists. Not to dwell on it at length, but to make the point briefly, I suggest that my right hon. Friend, if he went to Severnside, would find in that area roads, houses, schools and all the infrastructure which a workforce needs virtually already established within a radius of 20 or 30 miles, and little need for the massive public investment in building it up such as there could be if an airport were ever to be established at some such place as Foulness. There could be considerable

potential economy in investment in that way, and this at a time when we certainly have not enormous sums of money to spend on aviation or anything else.

Mr. Burden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the difficulties and problems associated with Foulness, and I am sure that the people concerned there and in North-West Kent will be grateful to him, too.

Mr. Onslow: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
Another unfortunate small omission to which I draw attention—I hope that we can put it right in Committee—is that there is nothing in the Bill as it stands which has the effect of strengthening the consultative machinery which was widened by the Civil Aviation Act, 1968. The time has come for a statutory requirement on aerodrome managers to satisfy the Secretary of State that they are providing adequate consultative machinery for the benefit of local residents, and they should be at risk of losing their aerodrome licences if they fail to meet that requirement. I hope to persuade my right hon. Friend to accept an Amendment on this point.

Mr. Michael Grylls: My hon. Friend knows Fairoaks aerodrome in Surrey very well. The lack of consultative machinery there has caused a great deal of concern among the local residents. I imagine that that was the sort of point which he had in mind when calling for adequate consultation.

Mr. Onslow: I am one of my hon. Friend's constituents, I can see that aerodrome from my window, and I rely on him to advance my interests in every possible way.
I find myself now in the rather unaccustomed position of agreeing, without too many reservations, with the right hon. Member for Barnsley. I think that Part 1 of the Bill is by far the most important. Whatever the provisions and consequences of the Clauses dealing with the Airways Board, we have to some extent to reserve judgment on them because the powers therein make sense only if it is determined that there should be a merger between the two Corporations, and they are powers which we can well do without if, on inquiry, it is found that


a merger is unnecessary and inappropriate. That, to some extent, is something we can come to much later.
The Civil Aviation Authority is a very important step forward, but as the Bill is worded it appears that whatever the intention of the Clauses may be their effect is likely to be restrictive. So much depends on the nature of regulations we have not yet seen, and on the terms of guidance, which my right hon. Friend has been able only to outline to us. I understand, of course, that one function the Authority would have had—the transfer of routes, though not significant routes—to a second force, in the words of the White Paper and the late Government, has been superseded by events, by the keenness of the directors of British and Commonwealth to find their way round the proposals to which both the Government and Opposition were committed. But I still do not understand whether a satisfactory answer has been given to the proposition that if the A.T.L.B. have been set up right and staffed right and left alone it might have done the job as well as we expect the C.A.A. to do it.
The weakness of the A.T.L.B. seemed to centre all through on the fact that it was always possible for anyone to appeal against its decisions, that its attitudes were never clearly known, which was partly its fault, and that its members all seemed to be old gentlemen—I do not blame them for that—who did not necessarily last a full day very easily. I do not know whether other hon. Members present have attended a session of the A.T.L.B., as I have. It seemed to me a potentially very workable machinery if it was allowed to take decisions which had effect and stood, if it was prepared to formulate attitudes instead of retreating from them, and if its members' ages could be somewhat reduced.
My right hon. Friend and I had some correspondence on this subject. I complained to him that the latest appointments had not succeeded in reducing the average age of the Board below threescore years. He wrote me a comforting letter saying that when the C.A.A. was formed it would be possible to introduce younger executive types because the opportunities would be that much greater, the scope would be correspondingly larger, and it would offer a job content

and remuneration attractive to younger men. I hope that my right hon. Friend is right. We must test this in Committee. So far it does not seem to me to be proved beyond a doubt that the functions of the Authority in its licensing sphere will necessarily be such as to attract the men of ability, imagination and drive without whom it will not work at all. It will make a home for many civil servants who are doing a splendid job, but it does not yet seem to me to be so constructed as to make certain that it will attract new blood into the industry and give the drive which the operators have a right to expect of the licensing system which controls them.
I find much sympathy with the editorial in the last week's edition of Flight, the burden of which is that the restrictions that the C.A.A. appears to be going to be placed under will be still greater than those which now exist and which have been applied for a long and not necessarily very happy period in British aviation. That is the real burden of my complaint.
This is a civil servants' Bill, inevitably drafted by civil servants, and, I have some suspicion, drafted for civil servants. Just because it is non-political, it is not necessarily non-controversial. I hope that we can persuade my right hon. Friend to follow the important precedent of civil aviation Bills in Committee of accepting the Committee's help to improve the Bill.
We all—many more of us than those who are here this afternoon—understand the importance of aviation to our economy. There is no sense in pretending that the aeroplane has not been invented. There is no sense in pretending that civil aviation does not face considerable difficulties through prejudice, ignorance and competition of a kind that is not always fair. It is affected perhaps more than most industries by momentary hiccups in the economic circumstances surrounding it. The House has been reminded of evidence of that. If it is to flourish, as we must all wish it to flourish, and if the House is to play the right rôle in enabling it to flourish, it is most important that we should create the maximum conditions of certainty and the maximum of confidence on the part of those who earn their living in it. By that I mean nationalised bodies, independent bodies and every man who depends on civil aviation for his livelihood. I hope that we


shall not forget that in the end the profits and successes in civil aviation will be won by the operators, not by the regulators.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: During the period in which the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and I have been in the House together there have not been many occasions or issues on which I have found myself in agreement with him, but on this occasion I agree very much with three points he made. First, I agree that airport users' consultative committees must be strengthened. The reason why they are not very strong was elicited by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in its examination of the British Airports Authority.
The fact is that those bodies are not in the real sense of the word independent, because they have no resources. They must rely on the British Airports Authority to give them a room in which to meet, and in some cases to provide other facilities, including the calling of meetings. In at least some cases—I do not know whether this applies in all cases— the chairman receives some sort of honorarium from the Authority. I am not saying that on these grounds the chairman or members of the committees will say, "Because we get an odd cup of coffee and a biscuit from the Authority, we shall not be critical." But it is pretty obvious that if we want to create a situation of conflict, as we do here, because the committees must look after the interests of the consumer against the Authority, then we must give them some resources of their own. To do so would not cost much, and I invite the Minister to think about it. A few thousand pounds a year would go a long way to satisfy the perfectly proper demand of the hon. Member for Woking in that regard.
Second, I agree that the Bill is stodgily worded. I have been following through a number of Measures with broadly similar objectives, and it is funny to note how they get longer and longer and more and more wordy. They start by having belt and braces and finish up by having belt, braces, suspenders, safety pins and the whole lot. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I wish that he had carried further his examination of the beautiful wording of Clause 4(4), part of which

says that if the Minister discovers that the wicked Authority is not doing something he can tell it not to do it. That is going a bit far.
Third, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the ineffectiveness of the Air Transport Licensing Board, though I am not sure that my diagnosis of the reasons for that are the same as his. The evidence given by witnesses from the Board to the Select Committee when it examined British European Airways, which is published as an appendix to the Report, is one of the choicest pieces of comic literature ever published by the Stationery Office. The way in which those venerable gentlemen, as the hon. Gentleman rightly described them, milled around under what was really a modest, gentle, kindly and charitable cross-examination of what they were up to revealed that the Board could not have worked in the way in which it was supposed to be working.
Much more than I agreed with the hon. Member for Woking, I agree with a great deal of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). Because I shall say one or two things about him in a moment or two with which he may not find himself in the most enthusiastic agreement, I should like at this stage to pay my tribute to the many constructive elements in his speech.
The Bill is bad—I will vote against it and if I were the only hon. Member to feel this way, I would still vote against it—because it contains measures for weakening, and potentiality for destroying, two of the safest, most efficient and most successful airlines in the world which, between them, constitute a piece of British enterprise that brings great credit to this country wherever they operate.
I find myself in a different position from my right hon. Friends over this, and I do not intend to mince words about it. I am concerned to save B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and not to save the faces of former Ministers of the last Labour Government who opened the way for the introduction of this bad Bill.
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley that the Caledonian-B.U.A. merger was bad and


a carve-up. It would not have taken place had he not stopped the B.O.A.C.B.U.A. merger. I can, therefore, be somewhat more expansive than he can in expressing my indignation.
The Bill totally ignores the lessons of the history of British civil aviation. I have followed this history for a long time and I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's reference to the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport, of which I am a member. The Joint Council is approaching its 25th anniversary and I discovered to my horror the other day that I am the only surviving founder-member, which makes me feel very ancient indeed and tends to impel me to write a letter of resignation.
By that means, and elsewhere, I have been following the history of British civil aviation for a long time, and there has been a constant thread running through it. It is that whenever the industry suffers, as it has several times, an act of fragmentation, it starts to go downhill and within a few years that act of fragmentation must be reversed to put the industry on its feet again.
The story starts way back in the 'thirties, when we had British Airways and Imperial Airways. They were fragmented and represented a duplication of effort and a waste of resources. They cut each other up. The facts were so obvious that even a Conservative Government had to merge them under public ownership. Thus, B.O.A.C., the first publicly-owned airline in Britain, was not the creation of some red, rabid, revolutionary Socialist Government but of a Conservative Administration because the facts of civil aviation life at that time were inescapable.
The Cadman Report was, in my view, a much better document, allowing for the difference in time, than the Edwards Report, nearly 40 years later. It exposed all the nonsense of trying to have double designation for British civil aviation. It was as a result of that exposé that the fragmentation of that time was reversed and B.O.A.C. was formed.
In 1946 the then Labour Government stupidly hived off South American routes to a separate corporation, and a few years later that had to be reversed. The British South American Airways Corporation was integrated into B.O.A.C.

Later still, under a Conservative Government this time, we had the third act of fragmentation when B.O.A.C. was compelled, by one of the most shabby commercial manoeuvres I have ever come across—a manoeuvre which, if it had been perpetrated in the City, would have landed somebody in court for fraud—to pass over some of its business to Cunard.
Again, it was a failure. This double designation across the Atlantic had to be put into reverse. The two pieces had to be merged and the fragmentation brought to an end, simply because British aviation will not work in this humpty-dumpty fashion. Successive acts of fragmentation have proved a failure and have had to be reversed and there are five reasons why this has been so.
The first is the obvious one; that the duplication of services cuts into the profits of both bits. It does not matter whether the two are private or public or whether one is public and one is private. The two cut into each other because the laws of economics operate in that way. Duplication means higher sales costs and higher overheads per unit. No philosophy, Labour or Tory, can get away from that.
Secondly, such duplication, double designation or fragmentation represents a serious waste of scarce resources, and there are some very scarce, advanced and sophisticated skills in this industry. When there is fragmentation and there is a disparate organisation the rich butter is spread too thinly on too many slices
Thirdly, the private sector in civil aviation has never been able to offer its employees proper standards of pay and conditions. In fact, the private sector had never been able to compete fairly with the Corporations. Compared with the Corporations, it has always underpaid, and this is bound to cause trouble.
Fourthly, perhaps because of lower criteria in pay and conditions—perhaps for other reasons also—the safety standards in the private sector, as the Edwards Report clearly shows, are substantially lower than those of the Corporations. The incidence of accidents in the private sector is correspondingly substantially higher—

Mr. John Wilkinson: rose—

Mr. Mikardo: —and if that is on this point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I hope he will save his trouble by reading the Edwards Report, where he will find all the figures.
The fifth reason for the failure of every act of fragmentation concerns double designation.

Mr. Wilkinson: rose—

Mr. Mikardo: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman after I have made my fifth point.
Because of the delicacy and sophistication of reciprocal rights between the aircraft flag carriers of different countries and because of the complexities of pool arrangements, the effect of double designation has always been that, overall, there is less for British airline operators, public and private, and more for their foreign competitors.

Mr. Wilkinson: rose—

Mr. Mikardo: I promised to give way shortly. The bloke must think he has some act of genius to bestow on the House.
It is idle my right hon. Friend and the Minister talking about double designating where it will not hurt the Corporations and where there will be an increase in the totality of traffic. The whole history of civil aviation shows that double designation benefits the competitor, and the real beneficiary on the London-Paris route will not be B.E.A. or B.U.A. Caledonian but Air France. Now I am delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) aware that his remarks imputing lower standards of safety among the independents were unjustifiable and most irresponsible, because they will affect the confidence of thousands of passengers throughout the country? If he had looked at the Edwards Report thoroughly, he would have found that the number of notifiable accidents per 100,000 stage flights of British United Airways was significantly lower than that for B.O.A.C. I would say that that was not a significant fact, but he should not draw such monstrous conclusions from the statistics.

Mr. Mikardo: I guessed that that was what the hon. Gentleman wanted to inter-

vene about, and I have answered it. I rest on the Edwards Report, which has been quoted with approval from both sides of the House. I rest on the annual reports published over the years. I take no pleasure in it and I am not saying it for pleasure or to make any political point—I am sad about it. The only accident record I should like is accidents in the public sector and in the private sector, nil; but the sad fact remains that all the evidence goes to show that the incidence of accidents is substantially higher in the private than in the public sector, and the hon. Gentleman cannot get away from that fact.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: It is interesting to observe that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) has quoted the best figure for the independents. If he had quoted the figure for dear old British Eagle, with which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) was associated, he would have found that its record was twice as bad as that of British United Airways.

Mr. Wilkinson: rose—

Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry, but this is my speech. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can speak later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If he wants to use figures in the House, he must learn to do one thing—to compare like with like and average with average, not the best of one group with the average of another.

Mr. Wilkinson: rose—

Mr. Mikardo: No, I am not giving way again. The right hon. Gentleman can repeat himself later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: He is a jack-in-the-box.

Mr. Mikardo: I was quoting the average of one against the average of the other. I will spell it out for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman in short sharp words of four letters, so that he can take his L-plate off if he likes: the average incidence of accidents of both Corporations on all routes is substantially lower than the average incidence of accidents of all private operators on all routes—"That ain't me, that's Edwards".
I am sorry to have been a little diverted. I was arguing that the whole


history of civil aviation showed that wherever the industry was separated out, it went wrong, and I have tried to analyse the reasons.
Yet Clause 3(1)(b) repeats the mistake of the past, but makes it more dogmatically and outrageously than ever before. It says that, no matter what the circumstances, no matter what changes may take place in the pattern of demand, no matter what changes may take place in civil aviation as a whole, or what differences there may be in the economics of the industry, regardless of circumstances and merit, there must always be a private airline.
If it loses money we have to have it; if it is grossly inefficient, we have to have it; if, as inevitably it must, it cuts into the profits of the Corporations and thereby costs the taxpayer money, we have still to put up with the taxpayer providing money in order to make profits for the shareholders of the private airline. If employment standards are lower, as they have been in the past—and this is the first ever Civil Aviation Bill not to lay down employment standards, and we have had many—the poor employees must put up with that. If it results, as all past experience shows that it must, in our losing traffic to foreign airlines, we must go on doing that in the sacred name and the sacred interests of a private airline.
Hon. Members opposite sometimes use the word "doctrinaire" as though it were a club to beat their opponents, but what can be more doctrinaire than that? We must have a private airline even if it loses money and costs the taxpayer money and results in a foreign airline taking business from us. The idiotic thing is that the Bill sets up a Board specifically to avoid duplication and the waste of resources between the two Corporations, but then specifically creates duplication and waste of resources between the two Corporations on the one hand and a private airline on the other. This is a brilliant manifestation of Conservative management science.
There are four other respects in which the Bill ignores the lessons of history. They are technical points, not of major importance, but not unimportant. First, the right hon. Gentleman made much of the fact that the Bill contained the time-honoured power to give general direc-

tions. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman read something of the history of the nationalised industries? A dozen or 15 Ministers for up to 25 years have had the power to give general directions to between 15 and 20 public corporations. During all that time, two general directions have been issued, both on small narrow technical points. As anyone knows who knows this history, a general direction by a Minister to a public corporation is an unusable tool. Matters just do not work that way. Relations between a Minister and a chairman of a corporation cannot be run on that basis, and so it has fallen into desuetude.
One can understand that in 1946, when the first nationalisation Measures were being drafted, someone might have thought that it was a good idea, and I may have done so myself, but one has to look at the record, and the record shows that it has turned out to be a boner, a dead stumer. Why, therefore, do we go on putting it into Bills claiming, as the right hon. Gentleman almost did, pride of parentage?
The second ignoring of the history is in the financial obligations which the Bill lays down. Only two are laid down. The first is the old tired 1946 formula of making ordinary revenue balance ordinary expenditure, taking one year with another. It has been abundantly demonstrated that when there is total control of pricing policy, when there is a monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic pricing control situation, it is absolutely meaningless and no guarantee of efficiency. The second is the requirement of a certain percentage on total assets employed. Anybody would think that 1946 was yesterday!
In 1961, the then Conservative Government realised that this was, if not nonsensical, a totally inadequate formula for controlling the economies of public corporations, and so they introduced the 1961 White Paper on the financial implications of the nationalised industries which sought to impose more sophisticated criteria than those blunderbusses of yardsticks, if that is not a strangely mixed metaphor, laid down in 1946 and 1947.
That 1961 White Paper has been ignored. That turned out to be inadequate so there was another White Paper


in 1966 on the financial obligations of the nationalised industries which carried these sophistications a bit further and introduced for the first time into invest-men appraisal of the nationalised industries the technique of discounted cash flow. That was a great improvement on 1961. Since then the Select Committee has analysed that and there has been much more thinking in the Civil Service, the Treasury, in this House, among academics. All of this has gone by the board. All that there is on financial obligations in the Bill is exactly the same as there was in the Civil Aviation Act, 1946—as though 25 years had just run under the bridge.
The third thing on which we have not learned from history is shown in that this Measure is terribly deficient on one point to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley rightly attached great weight, and that is consultation of employees. I rubbed my eyes when I heard the Minister in moving the Second Reading say that the Bill includes "a comprehensive system of consultation with employees". It has nothing of the sort. The right hon. Gentleman admitted in reply to an intervention by me that he had never got down to doing much reading of past Bills on what they provided for qualifications of members of boards. It is obvious that he has not done much reading about what past Bills provided in respect of consultation, because again the obligations to consult laid upon the Authority are exactly those laid down in the 1946 Act.
In one respect they are worse than the provisions of the 1946 Act, because the Authority is not required to consult at all with its employees about their pension arrangements. It can decide about pensions unilaterally. Since that 1946–49 nationalisation splurge we have gone a long way with consultation. More recent Measures have gone much further. The Steel Act does, as does the Post Office Act. The abortive Ports Bill went a good deal further.
None of this has impinged on the consciousness of the right hon. Gentleman who thinks that if he repeats what was done in 1946 he has done all that is necessary. That is for the Authority. As

far as the Board is concerned no consultative arrangements at all are laid down in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman may well say that that is because the Board will only have a small staff, but the Bill envisages the possibility of a very substantial increase. What happens if it absorbs the two Corporations? The employees of those Corporations now have some consultative rights which they will lose under the Bill. Not only is it not a great step forward, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested; it is actually a falling-back.
The last of my points concerns the Airways Board. The Corporations do not like that Board being set up, that is no secret. They have no one to blame but themselves. For the last 20 years I have been warning successive Chairmen of both Corporations that if they did not get together and work together in certain areas this would happen. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley reeled off a list of functions on which it would have been sensible for them to work together. It took them 20 years to set up such an obvious thing as a joint medical service. Even now I am told that if a person goes into the clinic, or whatever it is called, at London Airport, and he is a B.E.A. employee he is more likely to be seen by a B.E.A. doctor than a B.O.A.C. doctor.
It took 20 years to have such an obvious thing as a joint medical service. It is nonsensical that they can have computers which will rationalise aircraft movement at 400 airports and yet have not got a computer that will rationalise bus movements between Cromwell Road and Buckingham Palace Road so that sometimes a person can be waiting for a bus at one place and there is a surplus of buses at the other. Both Corporations do extremely well in staff training, including management training. But it really is a gross waste of resources to do it separately. The two Corporations have always watched each other out of the corner of a wary eye. Each was always afraid of being taken over by the other. When B.O.A.C. was doing well, and B.E.A. not so well, B.E.A. was frightened about being taken over, and vice versa. Because of that, they fenced and edged away from each other all the time. The Chairmen's Committee was generally a bit of window dressing.
I do not feel strongly about the Board, I do not think that it will add much or take much away, but there is one bit that worries me. The right hon. Gentleman talked about this being a streamlining operation. There is one respect in which it will not streamline and that is with respect to Government appraisal and approval of investment programmes of the two Corporations. One of the difficulties from which our nationalised industries suffer is that the chain of command through which they get their investment programmes approved, with or without amendments, by either their sponsoring Minister and/or the Treasury is already too long. It involves too much work and duplication, too much to-ing and fro-ing, too much delay and too much expertise being wasted.
The Corporation gets out its investment programme, it goes to the sponsoring Ministry who vet it and argue for months about it. That is finalised and the whole caboodle goes to the Treasury which talks with the sponsoring Ministry but not the Corporation and all the cabbages are cooked a second and third time. One of the grievances of the chaps responsible for running the outfit, and the investment programmes is a very important part of it, is that they can never talk to the bloke who decides the investment programme, namely, the man at the Treasury. They talk to the chap at the Ministry who in turn talks to the chap at the Treasury. They are always talking to the monkey and never to the organ grinder.
What is worrying now is that we have an extra link in the chain. Now the investment programme will go from the Corporation to the Board to the Ministry to the Treasury. This pattern is too long-drawn-out, and a much too complicated and cumbersome, bungling apparatus is made much longer and much bigger.
I feel very strongly and not altogether without some little knowledge of what goes on in the industry, that assuming this Bill is passed, and I suppose it will be, in five years' time British civil aviation in total, taking public and private together, will be less healthy and prosperous than it is today. It is for that reason that I shall tonight go into the Lobby and vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I welcome the opportunity of talking on fresh legislation relating to civil aviation in view of the huge expansion in flying which has taken place and the very great disturbance caused to the public. The Roskill Report has shown that the choice of a site for an airport is a matter of fantastic complication.
Clause 3 of the Bill lays a duty on the Civil Aviation Authority to encourage "a favourable balance of payments". I shall be very interested to learn how this matter will be judged. Who benefits by charter flying? Is it the traveller who spends his money abroad? Is British aviation generally encouraged? Or does benefit arise only when the traveller stays in a British-owned hotel when he is abroad? This will be a most difficult act of judgment which the Authority will have to make when it licenses charter flying. If it results in a certain amount of trepidation about licensing charter flying. I for one shall not he desperately upset.
I wish principally to speak on Clause 4(4) under which the Secretary of State may give direction on noise and disturbance. The Government have been unduly soft about the difficulties which confront them when they have to judge between aviation earning a profit and the intense discomfort caused to people on the ground. Night charter flights cause great harm to people over whose property flying takes place. But the Minister's attitude has been that it is not fair to increase the cost of flights by compelling all flights to take place by day. I have given him the relative difference—£9 on the cost of an average charter holiday of £50. The time has come for us to look into this matter more carefully.
Charter holidays have become extremely cheap and reasonable, but they are so popular that intense discomfort is being caused to the general public. Certainly we in the South-East have enough of them already. It is necessary to have a greater measure of control. But the Government are encouraging night charter flying by permitting a lower cost to the extent of £2 to be charged for a night charter flight as against the cost for a day flight. The Government now have the chance to review their policy.
The Government's policy is to encourage the ownership and management of municipal airports by local authorities in the belief that these bodies are better placed to judge the transport needs of a region and that they can also be expected to be responsive to local factors about matters connected with the airports. The first breach in the Government's confidence was the setting up of airport consultative committees, which are certainly needed. Whether they are effective is another matter.
I wish to take the example of the municipal airport at Luton to show the difficulties under which Luton has to operate and the judgment which is applied in accordance with the Government's intention that the authority shall be mindful of the needs of the area.
Luton is a particularly difficult airport from which to operate. First, when taking off to the west, aircraft must, unfortunately, fly for about 30 miles at a maximum height of 4.000 feet above sea level, taking them right over the roofs of Chequers. A lot of the hilly country in the area is at a height of 800 feet. Therefore, aircraft fly very low for a considerable period, and in very congested air space within the London control zone, very close to the Bovingdon stacking area. They are in an area which is already too congested for flying. They fly over especially fine countryside. The Chilterns are of outstanding beauty.
During the debate on the Roskill Report we heard a great deal about the beauty of the Vale of Aylesbury, but it does not bear comparison with the Chilterns and the National Trust country at Ashbridge. It may be announced that it is quite intolerable to allow an airport to be built at Cublington. It is possible that if expansion at Luton continues as it is at present there will be more flying from Luton before the end of this decade than there would be at Cublington in 2002.
Another difficulty about Luton is that it is sandwiched between two new towns —Hemel Hempstead and Stevenage. They are both considered to be very fine examples of how Britain should be in future, with people having the opportunity of living decent lives and getting away from slum conditions and into fine new town areas. Both new towns are

spreading. It is fortuitous perhaps but their development is taking place towards Luton. A report on this matter has already been issued by an independent expert at Stevenage, and the same will apply to Hemel Hempstead. It is a battle between the expansion of Luton and the orderly development of new towns.
Control should be exercised over the expansion of flying services at Luton. There is a consultative committee at Luton, but the Luton Corporation takes very little notice of it. It just goes ahead with steady expansion of its charter services, trying to draw in to Luton as much business as it can and to make a profit for the municipality regardless of the disadvantages to people much further afield. It is essential that there should be more effective control over municipal airports.
At the moment, all that the Government can do is to say, "If you require further planning permission we shall call in the planning application and hold a public inquiry". But that is not much good. It is possible for a very large number of day and night aircraft movements to take place at municipal airports. The present system of controlling municipal airports is unacceptable.
I believe that the consultative committees need teeth, and I believe that it would be even better that municipal airports should be licensed, possibly annually, by the Civil Aviation Authority, which should be able to lay down the conditions of operation so that it shall not be possible any more for the Minister to write to me and say that he is very sorry and appreciates all the difficulties which there are but the Government have no control over the operations of Luton and that he has every confidence in the good sense of the Corporation of Luton and that he is quite sure that it will do nothing in any way out of keeping with the general policy of aviation in this country. That is just not good enough.
Therefore, I welcome this Bill, if it will effect a very considerable improvement in control over aircraft noise.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that there are about 14 hon. Members wanting to speak and that there are about 140 minutes before I shall have to start calling Front Bench speakers again. Hon.


Members are able to draw their own deductions from that, and I hope that they will have regard to the length for which they speak.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. William Small: I shall follow the guidance which you have given, Mr. Speaker, and make only a short contribution to this debate.
For myself, I have a lukewarm attitude towards this Bill and its construction. I would say first of all that the objective of the Bill has not been spelt out. Unfortunately, because of air transport delay, I did not hear the Minister's speech, B.E.A. being two hours late from Glasgow today. Nevertheless, the Bill does not spell out the Government's policy clearly enough, if the objective of the Government's policy is as that policy was enunciated at the General Election —to provide for full, fair, free competition. If that had been spelt out, it would have been understandable, and if it is the Government's policy it should have been in the Bill, but it is not the objective as stated in the Bill.
The Bill seems to have a measure of rationalisation as its objective, but also to give benefits to the independents but not necessarily through full and fair competition in the true sense of the word. That is one reason why I take a rather lukewarm view of what the Bill is attempting to do.
I am interested in co-ordination of air services and of transport as a whole in 1971 and in the future, and there ought to be a co-ordinated policy. I cannot envisage Glasgow to London electrification by 1974 or 1975 and competition by rail with B.E.A. or any other air operator from Glasgow to London unless there are signs of a fares structure being applied by the Minister with the right to fix a fares structure. It seems to me, after the experience of seeking to improve rail services between London and Birmingham and then laying down the Ml, so that freight, which might have been of benefit to the railways, suddenly goes back to the roads, that it may be rather a lot to expect co-ordination of rail and air transport in the near future in Britain. I do not find it spelt out here in the Bill.
I come to the composition of the Civil Aviation Authority and its duties as laid

down in Clause 3. Its duties are laid down in subsection (1)(b) as being among other things
to secure that at least one major British airline which is not controlled by the British Airways Board has opportunities to participate in providing, on charter and other terms…
Air transport services to satisfy all substantial categories of public demand at the lowest possible charges. It has always been my contention that nationalised transport should have an opportunity to go in for chartering and for trooping and for a share of that traffic, and I should have thought that the new Authority should have a fair share, and I should think that that would be in the Authority's mind.
It seems to me that the composition of the Airways Board, from eight to 15 members, is a very wide margin, but is the chairman to be consulted about the membership, or will that be subject purely to Ministerial direction with no consultation with the chairman, or between the chairman and the appointees?
Clause 38 is the "general duty" Clause, and I find its wording peculiar in this sense—how does one make this judgment of what would be to the best advantage in terms of investment policy at any given time? Would the Clause prohibit loss making for a year or two years even on essential services? Under that Clause the board has the duty
to exercise its powers in a manner calculated to secure that the air transport services…are developed to the best advantage and the resources…
The principle of ownership would come into this matter, as I would view it, and one cannot separate the financial obligations, which the Minister has mentioned 17 or 18 times. I welcome the Secretary of State's having the right to be an interventionist in matters of national concern, and I would hope that the obligations on the private sector are equal to the obligations on the public sector.
I say this especially having regard to the services in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Subsidy for the role to be played in the Highlands and Islands by nationalised services which are a public need should not in any way be weakened by this Bill and the obligations which


are laid upon the public sector, and when the Government talk about things being equal as between public and private enterprise I hope that things are equal, too, in the obligations on the independents in providing public services and providing them in real terms.
I am concerned about another thing. Are the appeals to and decisions by the Air Transport Licensing Board to be a matter of precedent? Is past practice to be the precedent and to be carried over into the new arrangements, and will it apply to the right of appeal? Are the previous precedents abolished, or will they be the criteria for appeals under the new arrangements? Will Ministerial decisions be binding on the new Authority?

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: First of all, I think this Bill is a welcome attempt to step forward in civil aviation legislation. At the same time I find it, as an instrument for promoting the development of civil aviation, one which lacks in many respects the types of detail which are needed, and I think it needs considerable improvement, which, I am sure, will be effected in Committee. I do not find that it stresses customer demand as strongly as it ought. It seems to me to be much more a charter for civil servants than a charter for civil aviation, and I think that it seeks to regulate rather than to encourage.
Here, I think, we can perhaps see the transference of some of the views of the Edwards Report, which, in Chapter 20, says that this is "a regulated industry". I think we can see the word "regulation" being passed over far too easily. We ought to see more of the objectives of the Edwards Report where we have the statement that it was a guide to action, and I would like to see action and encouragement being given to the industry rather than regulation.
In total, I find that the Bill constrains the industry in a way which has become almost a tradition in this country. Since the Second World War this has become almost conventional wisdom with successive Ministries concerned with civil aviation. I should like to amplify these points and, perhaps, identify some solutions.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) regarded the industry as one which has gone over the peak and is now on a downturn. It is on a downturn in terms of the total effect of the results against the budget. The International Civil Aviation Organisation last year forecast a 14 per cent. compound growth rate, which has been traditional over the past few years. The amount achieved was only 12 per cent., but it is still, as we remarked in terms of the debate on the Roskill Report, probably the fastest growth industry in the world. We should not underestimate the demand that exists and our legislation must be just as active as that demand.
I will deal briefly with certain particular points. First, I do not doubt that the Civil Aviation Authority will be welcomed on either side of the House, but in the terms of the Bill it will have less power than the Air Transport Licensing Board in its ability to promote the interests of civil aviation route licensing.
There are many more occasions throughout the Bill when the Secretary of State will now be able to intervene than he has had heretofore under existing legislation. Clause 3 is an example, and one has always to read the small print. Clause 3 states that the Secretary of State will issue to the Authority a statement which will mean that the Authority has to accord with guidance which the right hon. Gentleman gives. This is, therefore, the Department of Trade and Industry telling the Civil Aviation Authority what it has to do. How will that be balanced against the other part of Clause 3, which provides that the Authority has to perform its functions
in the manner which it considers is best calculated
to achieve the objectives?
The question becomes, who is boss? The answer is that the Minister is boss and, therefore, in terms of being able to give guidance, he must achieve priority. Although there is obviously a need in the Civil Aviation Authority and it is recognised that it must be as independent as possible, it is a pity that the Minister has this easy right to weigh in and state, "I am the boss". Under Clause 4, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) mentioned, the Civil Aviation Authority can regulate domestic fares but has no right to discuss international


affairs. Here, it is subject to the Department of Trade. That is a pity, because there is an interface here where all the experience which, we hope, will be put into the Civil Aviation Authority is not there by right of consultation.
Hon. Members have already referred to the lack of normal consultative machinery between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Authority. There should be a right of interchange of opinion both ways, and the one should not be the subject of instructions to the other. This is important, because if one is trying to get a Civil Aviation Authority which will work, it must draw to it because of its authority men of sufficient calibre to make it work. If it is not its own master, I do not think that those men will come forward.
In Clause 21, there is a reference to the type of authority which the Civil Aviation Authority will have. It will prohibit the use of any aircraft for carriage or reward of passengers or cargo on specified flights. It does not say specifically whether those will he United Kingdom-registered aircraft or what happens to aircraft with foreign registration.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look at the situation in the United States, where the Civil Aeronautics Board has the right and the duty to issue foreign carrier permits to airlines seeking to operate into the United States and thus regulates the type of frequency of operation and the type of airline which comes into the United States. There are many instances at the moment where all the airlines in this country, whether the national airlines or the independents, are at a disadvantage compared with many United States operators coming into this country. I hope, therefore, that in terms of policy, the Department of Trade and Industry will not simply make policy and look upon the Authority as a means of implementing it, but will regard this as a joint partnership in which the Department regards the Authority as the true authority on civil aviation.
Clause 1, which deals with the constitution of the Authority, states that it shall consist of
not less than six nor more than twelve persons appointed by the Secretary of State".
I have three questions. First, for how long are those gentlemen or ladies to be appointed? I hope that they will be

appointed only for fixed terms. Secondly, I hope that they will be appointed for overlapping terms, thereby preserving continuity. It is essential to have men of experience and with successful records in civil aviation, and not just wash-outs who happen to be available at the time to fill positions.
My third question is how much they are to be paid. I am sorry to be rather mundane about this, but we are back to the question of getting the right men of the right calibre. If we do not give the right pay, in the terms of the trade union maxim, we shall not get the right job done. One of the pities of the Air Transport Licensing Board has not been so much its age but that it has essentially been part-time and, therefore, it has been able to get only part-time or retired men who have the time available to come and help.
I would like to refer to the change of nomenclature from "air service licence" to "air transport licence". Clause 25 states that there will be this transition. Here again, however, I feel that in the Bill we have not yet got down to the detail which is necessary. I hope that routes will be licensed for certain defined periods—say, seven or 10 years. That is about the right period for the airlines to digest and accommodate if we are to help to keep competition going between one national board and another, and between the national boards and the independent airlines, and keep the adrenalin flowing through the veins of the boards of management. Too often I find them rather asleep on the fact that they have got the routes and they can never change. Some of the argument today has been about the very situation in which change has occurred. This is a pity. Routes should be licensed only for a defined period.
What chance is there for airlines which have ideas and initiative, and which want to open up new markets, if they do not know that they can bid for new routes on equal terms with anybody else? A simple example is that of Lloyd International Airlines, which wanted to open up an all-freight route from London to Hong Kong. It made two applications to the Air Transport Licensing Board and was the only airline which applied. B.O.A.C. objected, and so the application was turned down on both occasions. The


result was that B.O.A.C., which had never thought of it before, started an all-cargo route to Hong Kong. There must be a chance for new airlines to thrive. If they have the opportunity, they can be given encouragement.
I feel that Clause 25 is still weighted towards the protection of the airlines which come under the Airways Board without sufficient recognition that the competition lies not between one airline and another in this country, but between all airlines in this country and foreign airlines. That is the real competition.
Within the context of air transport licensing, I welcome, however, Clause 32, as a result of which we shall be told a lot more about the pooling details in which B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have engaged with foreign airlines. I must say that I regard the gift to B.U.A. of the Gatwick-Le Bourget route as a little bit of a backhander. Nobody want to go on from Le Bourget. It is due to be closed down in the not-too-distant future and it is impossible to make any interconnection between Le Bourget and any other part of France. I hope that the connection between Gatwick and Le Bourget which is offered to B.U.A. can eventually be transferred to Orly or Paris Nord.
Fourthly, the A.R.B. has been renamed, but this makes no difference to the fact that the Air Registration Board in this country is the finest Air Registration Board in the world. It is acknowledged to be such by the United States and by every other foreign country. This can be seen from the way in which it vetted the Boeing 707 when it was introduced into B.O.A.C. and made it a stable aircraft, completely free of some of the problems which it had had hitherto.
I am disappointed that under Clause 27(2)(c) the Civil Aviation Authority will be required to consult the Air Registration Board. The words needed here are "will be required to accept". The members of the C.A.A. will not have the ability, collectively or individually, to determine whether or not the built-in lifetime's experience and knowledge of the members of the A.R.B. should or should not be accepted. The A.R.B. is sacrosanct in the opinion of everyone in aviation, its credibility has never been in doubt, and I hope "consult" will be changed to "accept".
Two points are missing from the Bill. First, there is no mention of private flying. This is where we are back again to regulation rather than encouragement. Private flying is the base of all aviation, and it has been for too long neglected and depressed. I should like to see it encouraged and not frustrated. We should encourage people to realise that flying is a normal, natural, means of communication which everybody should have the right to take part in and enjoy.

Mr. Rankin: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if the local authorities were encouraged to play the part they used to play in licensing this would help private flying to succeed?

Mr. Warren: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, whose views on this I respect. He is absolutely right.
The other missing item is statistics, which is an item which must be brought into the Bill as an active ingredient before it can become an Act. Clauses 19 and 20 both identify the possibility that statistics could be produced, but there is a need for something more than the suggestion. There is a need for something parallel to the Civil Aeronautics Board statement in the United States, which is a full monthly statement of air travel usage and route profitability on each and every airline. The statement in the Bill about the Official Secrets Act worries me. People may whistle back behind this and leave us without the information which has frustrated so many airlines for so long. This has landed far too many independents into a market about which they had no knowledge. Although the statistics existed in the Board of Trade they were not made known to the airlines because it was considered not to be in the public interest to do so. It is about time we stopped this nonsense and had a monthly publication telling us who flies where, how often, and whether the route is profiable.
There is nothing wrong about this. Complete disclosure of company information is required by other Acts of Parliament, and it is about time we had this in the air transportation business. The shield of secrecy which has been held over air transportation for far too long has been a disincentive. An example of it can be seen in terms of the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Mr. Small) who arrived


two hours late and has already left the Chamber and who travelled today between Glasgow and London. Over this route in the last ten years the air fare has doubled, whereas on a comparable route from San Francisco to Los Angeles in the same period of time the air fare has halved, simply because it is an air route which stimulates growth and people know how to operate the airline and the passenger demand.

Mr. Robert Adley: And there is competition.

Mr. Warren: As my hon. Friend says, it is also an example of competition.
My last point is on the subject of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. Having spent six years with B.O.A.C., I am conscious of the high standard of operation of B.O.A.C., but neither B.O.A.C. nor B.E.A. has any right to protected routes over an unlimited period of time. I have commented on the need in route licensing to define limits in time. I have in mind not only existing routes but routes which need to be exploited but which are withheld from anybody else's operation, such as routes between this country and the Southern and South-Western States of the United States. I also have in mind the existing haphazard routes between this country and the Middle East, where B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are the greatest competitors one with the other. One has to be absolutely sure—and I hope B.O.A.C. will take account of this—that these two airlines, when operating in competition one with the other, and when challenging independent airlines on routes, will tender to the Authority accounting procedures which are identical and stated in terms which everybody can understand.
We have had the classic example recently, where B.O.A.C. has said that the Concorde is much more expensive to operate than the Boeing 747, and yet it has disclosed subsequently that the accounting procedures used for each aeroplane were totally different. I do not think, as the right hon. Member for Barnsley said, that we want to subsidise Concorde—it would be quite ridiculous. The Concorde could make a lot of money and certainly the Concorde is not for knocking.
The Bill is a pointer to the way ahead in "the 'seventies" but needs the benefit

of practical civil aviation experience to make it into a sensible, progressive and profitable Act. I am confident that the Government will add the essential momentum to get the Bill airborne as an Act.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Russell Kerr: There is an old saying in show business—"Try never to follow a good act". Anyone who has heard the act, if I may so call it, of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) will agree that I am following a very good act indeed. He has covered 82 per cent. of the points which I had intended to make had I caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, a little earlier. I have three observations to make, one of a general nature and the other two of a particular nature before I save the time of the House by sitting down a little sooner than I originally intended and thereby earning your gratitude, Sir.
It is fairly well known that I am for my sins one of the people who attempts to speak for the workers of London Airport which immediately adjoins my constituency. Thousands of my constituents, perhaps even tens of thousands, are employed at the airport.
I will not repeat the arguments which I advanced just over a year ago, but one year after the decision of the previous Government to proceed, albeit on rather different terms, with the establishment of a second force airline, there is still great anger amongst my constituents who are employed at London Airport. This applies not merely to the rabble-rousing elements at the bottom of the income scale but also at the top, in both Corporations.
No less vigorous anger is expressed amongst the senior executives, whom I have from time to time to meet in my constituency work, than at the bottom end of the income scale. Almost to a man they feel cheated and let down by the proposal to set up the second force airline, and doubly so when they look at the nature of the proposals advanced by the Government on 3rd August, which have been followed by legislation in accordance with that basic decision to proceed. They take the view, which I agree with, that they have struggled for


more than 25 years against great odds to make these two national enterprises successful, until in recent years each has become an acknowledged leader in its own field. As a result of their success, and the way they have managed to haul the British flag right to the top of the mast, they have made a considerable contribution to the national Exchequer. They are also angry because they know the fierce competition they experience every day of their working lives in international air transport. Anybody who has taken the trouble to study this industry, involving hundreds of millions of £s, knows this to be only too true. This is a tremendously important industry for the economic well-being of the country.
The reason for all this anger nearly a year after the announcement of this decision is that there is a widespread feeling that the present Government in almost unseemly haste have sought to line the pockets of their political friends so that the ability of the two national Corporations to compete successfully in the international airline jungle has been gravely impaired.
Recent news strongly suggests that the whole of the international airline community is about to enter a very frosty period indeed. Already there are indications from B.O.A.C. that its future profitability level will bear this out. These sorts of matters make people fearful for their job security and of the ability of the airlines to provide them with the career opportunities and all the rest which they have a right to expect. If the Government had deliberately set out—I am not suggesting that in fact they have —to destroy these two great national assets, they could hardly have done better than to advance the cause of a second force airline in the way they have.
As a result of these highly politically inspired moves by the Government, morale among both management and workers at London Airport, and no doubt elsewhere in the industry, has already taken a nose-dive. One fears that the relatively peaceful industrial relations which have been characteristic of this industry over the years will before long suffer a serious decline. I trust that this state of affairs is not the sort of thing right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite

are seeking to achieve now that they are in Government.
I should like to say a few brief words about some of the detailed matters in the Bill. I should like first to mention the licensing of air transport, a considerable section of which is dealt with in the Bill. Members will recall that the Edwards Committee was critical of the old Air Traffic Licensing Board procedure whereby appeals to the Minister against adverse decisions were virtually automatic. Indeed, Edwards suggested that many applicants for licences deliberately understated their case at the original hearings so that they could bring allegedly fresh evidence to the appeal and thus favour their chance of success. A major fault of the present proposals in the Bill is that we shall see a repeat of that kind of situation in which the final decision will again be left to the Minister. I anticipate that this legislation will produce all the old faults of the previous A.T.L.B. system.
Finally, I wish to say a brief word about the British Airways Board. I am not as enthusiastic as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar about this proposal in the Bill. I have spoken to a number of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. senior officials and nothing I have heard persuades me to believe that it is either necessary or desirable. The case for integration along the lines proposed rests upon largely hypothetical grounds of shared overheads and greater utilisation of aircraft. There is already fairly extensive use of shared facilities; we have heard this afternoon about shared health and medical services, joint pilot training schemes, joint engineering apprentice schemes and so on. I have no doubt that further co-operation along these lines, is possible including perhaps on the hotel and catering services front.
But I believe that the case for a higher level of integration in the optimum use of aircraft becomes very doubtful indeed. Both B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. managements are against the whole idea, which is perhaps not surprising. They point to the fact that there are very big differences as between operating a long-haul service and a medium-haul service since both services require different aircraft types, different methods of sales promotion, different catering facilities, and so on.
A further matter which should be underlined is that if this type of integration is pursued as between medium and long-haul aircraft, one predictable consequence will be the effect on the British aviation industry. For reasons which Swissair and Alitalia have made obvious, we shall end up with an all-American aircraft fleet. And as somebody with considerable faith in the technological and scientific ability of the British aircraft industry and its ability to create breaks-through, I should be very sad indeed to see action by this Government or any other Government resulting in the British aviation industry being forced to use only American aircraft.
If we go in for a mixture of medium and long-haul aircraft, it will inevitably mean that the long-haul machines will have to cover the medium-haul services, not the other way round. We ought also to look at the cost saving which is claimed by a number of people who have spoken on this subject. The idea that there will be certain substantial savings as a result of the marrying together of these disparate airline functions is almost totally fallacious. In terms of the use of long-haul aircraft on European routes, according to the figures I have before me, it can be seen that when the Lockheed 1011–8 operates on routes of 2,000 miles and above, the cost per passenger mile is of the order of 1½ old pence; whereas when operating on shorter routes the cost increases by something like double, to 5 old pence per passenger mile. For purposes of comparison, it should be pointed out that the Trident on shorter routes operates at well above a 15 per cent. saving as compared to the long-haul aircraft route. Therefore, any idea that the Corporations will save money by this mixture of the two types of aircraft should be rejected by the House.
I wish to emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar, that this Bill is a very bad piece of legislation, not least because of the blanket powers it gives in respect of an extension of the activities of the second force airline. I join with my hon. Friend in asking others of my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill tonight in at least a token demonstration of opposition to one of its main propositions, the creation of the second force private airline.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I want to comment briefly on the speeches made by the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Roy Mason). Each of them talked about savings to be made by rationalisation, and the previous Minister went further and talked about integration. The hon. Member for Feltham wanted to safeguard the jobs of his constituents and the hon. Member for Poplar spoke for workers in the aviation industry generally. If rationalisation and integration come about there will inevitably be a reduction in the number of jobs. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They must face the consequences of what they are saying and realise that their proposition would mean fewer jobs.
It was time that we had a review of the whole of civil aviation. The Edwards Committee, set up by the last Government, carried out such a review, and it is therefore not surprising that the Opposition today generally support the Bill, with reservations that will come out in Committee. The weakness of the old licensing system—which will be repealed by the Bill—was that appeals against the allocation of routes went through the Commissioner and not direct to the Minister. The Commissioner decided the appeal but the Minister gave a final "Yea" or "Nay" to the Commissioner's decision.
That anachronism led to much delay, and when the Minister overruled decisions both of the A.T.L.B. and the Commissioner it weakened the position of both, and especially the A.T.L.B. I am therefore relieved to find it emphasised in Clause 1 that the Authority which will decide on licensing is not to be the servant or agent of the Crown. If the Minister is prepared to face the consequences of that provision and give the Authority the right degree of control he must use any power of appeal that he possesses in a way that will not undermine the Authority. His powers must not be lightly used. If they are, the statement that the Authority will not be an agent of the Crown, although being true in fact, will make little real sense.
Considerable play has been made of the alleged improvement that the Bill


will bring for British airlines. In general, it would appear that apart from the Corporations no real change is made from the A.T.L.B. position. What real improvements are there? The British Airways Board has power to control the activities of the Corporations. It will have power to authorise the dissolution of either Corporation—"either", not "both". That provision is deliberately designed to investigate the possibility of integration—the possibility of there being one great body rather than B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. It goes beyond ordinary rationalisation.
Industrial experience shows that we can have an industry that is far too big, where communications become clogged up and the organisation loses the very soul that it is necessary for big industry to keep if it is to be fully efficient and ensure the wellbeing of its employees. I suggest that although some advantages are to be derived from rationalisation, and from creating one body rather than having two Corporations considerable disadvantages also can ensue. The balance must be weighed carefully.
There would be savings in equipment and in servicing. There would obviously be savings in catering, computerisation, and other services—including ticket offices. But would there be a great overall advantage? The question will have to be considered very carefully over a long period.
The new Authority will exercise considerable power over B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I hope that the new body will not interfere too much with the general management of either Corporation or both, because that would be fatal. If the general managements of the Corporations were constantly looking over their shoulders at the interpretation placed upon their actions by the British Airways Board it would not be very inducive to good, long-term management.
I have always felt that the essential weakness of the A.T.L.B. was that it was comprised exclusively of lay people. Whatever may have happened in the past the new body, because of its extensive powers, must consist of men with a good deal of experience in the airline business. They must have a wide

knowledge of the industry and also some experience of management in the industry. That is vitally important, not only if the new body is to be successful but if it is to be regarded as the right sort of body by the airline industry itself. It would be intolerable if the new Authority, with its great responsibilities and powers, did not consist of men who knew what the industry was all about.
If control of the private sector must be exercised through licensing I suggest that it should be on a "use-it-or-lose-it" basis. In other words, if licences are issued airlines must be told that they should operate under the terms of those licences within a certain period. If they fail to do so the routes must be taken away from them.
Before the Bill goes to Committee the Minister ought also to consider the question of separately licensing each route and discontinuing multi-purpose licensing. Multi-purpose licensing encourages route-hogging. Many licences now have so many origins and destination points that amount almost to blanket licences. Consideration should also be given to the question of licensing on a minimum and not maximum frequency basis.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley referred to Caledonian-B.U.A. I hope that notwithstanding all that has been said by hon. Members opposite the Government intend to ensure that Caledonian-B.U.A. has a square deal and the possibility of profitability. What amazes me about the right hon. Member for Barnsley is that Caledonian-B.U.A. was his conception, yet every time he speaks about it here, instead of encouraging it he looks at it and says, "You bastard". I am sorry to say that, but that is exactly his attitude. The child being his, he should at least accept some responsibility for its decent upbringing.

Mr. Mason: The child was not conceived in such rottenness as the Tory Government introduced when they pinched routes from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. in order that the conception could take place. We did not agree with that action, and the hon. Gentleman knows it full well, so he had better stop repeating a sentence that he has uttered three or four times. Further, does he not agree that his right hon. Friend seems


to have jumped a step ahead today'? Is it not true that, legally, Caledonian-B.U.A. cannot operate those routes it has pinched until affirmative Orders have been passed?

Mr. Burden: That is a matter for the Minister, and I see that he shakes his head in denial. The simple fact is that the right hon. Gentleman opposite refused to allow B.U.A. to be taken over by B.O.A.C., and stated emphatically that it had to be the core of the new second force. He cannot wriggle out by smooth and snide remarks. if the Labour Party is intent on taking away all the routes that Caledonian-B.U.A. now operate, I hope that the whole staff there will realise that their jobs are not only in jeopardy but would be lost completely if the Labour Party became the Government again.
Whereas I have earlier argued against blanket routeing for freight, which I believe will continue to grow, it is essential that freight licensing should be looked at rather differently from that of scheduled service and passenger licensing. It is essential in good freight operation to have the possibility of more ad hoc dropping and picking up than now exists.
The Bill does not mention hovercraft but I presume that this form of transport is still under consideration, because there is no doubt that it will come much more into use. Not a lot is known about hovercraft at the moment, and I presume that as this type of transport develops it will be brought much more into discussion, and the necessary controls imposed.
This is generally a good Bill. It advances much that Edwards wanted. It must be looked at very carefully in Committee. I hope that the Minister will take the view that it will be so interpreted that the Government will interfere in the activities of the Authority and of B.A.B. as little as possible. I am sure that that is the only way of seeing that the people operating them do not feel that their actions are likely to be undermined or inhibited.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I have never previously intervened in this Caledonian-B.U.A. discussion, for the simple reason that, like me, Adam

Thomson is a good Scotsman, and will be a good Scotsman whether he is running an aircraft, or an aircraft service, or merely serving in some minor capacity. I know him. I have had him in the House. I have visited his headquarters. I assert that Adam Thomson, who has done well in every aviation venture he has touched, will continue to do well, and will discharge with credit the obligation that we have placed upon him.
The debate reminds me to some extent of what has happened in the past. When I have heard criticisms of the aircraft that are being used today I recall that just about 22 years ago I was flying backwards and forwards between Glasgow and London in a DH Rapide at about 90 miles an hour. The sole refreshment was a glass of water, if water was carried, and if the wind did not blow kindly there was no protection such as we now have. That was just over 20 years ago, when five of us who were Labour Members used to make that journey.
On the other hand, on Friday night I flew with my wife from London to Glasgow in less than an hour, at a speed of 400 miles an hour, in a beautiful new aircraft—the third mark of the Trident. In two years there have been three marks of that aircraft, each providing more and more comfort. Most people are fairly well satisfied to make the journey from London to Glasgow inside 60 minutes in conditions that could not be bettered in a top level hotel. What more do we want? Who will deny the progress made in this much criticised service? The increased speed and comfort and all the other improvements have come about as a result of knowledge, of research, and of the ability and determination of the workers to go ahead. We should remember that background in criticising progress in the industry.

Mr. Grylls: The hon. Gentleman has talked about the improved service to Glasgow. Does he agree that it was the independents who first introduced jets and started competition with modern aircraft?

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, but I did not grasp one word that the hon. Gentleman enunciated. I heard plenty of sound but was unable to decipher what was said. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will


forgive me if I proceed as I had intended before his interruption.
The Bill provides a British Airways Board to oversee, and later perhaps to merge, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. The Bill also sets up a Civil Aviation Authority to regulate British airlines.
The most important part of the Bill, however, is that dealing with licensing. So far it has not attracted much attention. The headlines have found a greater attraction in the possibility of a merger between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
The proposed absorption of the Air Registration Board has not aroused much interest. Closer co-operation between B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., especially on the investment side, would be acceptable, but not necessarily merger-provoking. Even taking over the A.R.B. is not a priority. The Edwards Committee proposed a Civil Aviation Authority but did not get far. The Bill is giving the Department of Trade and Industry far more power than it presently possesses.

Mr. Noble: indicated dissent.

Mr. Rankin: The Minister is shaking his head at my assertion. It is my view, and perhaps I will be shown where I have reached a wrong conclusion. The Department will retain control over international fares and traffic rights and exercise both functions without any consultations with other interested parties. If I am wrong about that, I am sure that I shall be corrected. It should be noted that 70 per cent. of Britain's air transport is international. Yet these economic keys will be delegated, not, as suggested by Edwards to the Civil Aviation Authority, but to the Department of Trade and Industry, as decided by the Government.
On the matter of public versus private enterprise, I trust that there will be no attempt to predetermine shares of the total air transport market. It is unrealistic to think of transferring existing routes and opportunities from the Corporations to the private sector. What we should do for the future is ensure that both private and public enterprise have access to the future growth and opportunities available in an industry which I am assured will double in size over the next seven years.
According to paragraph 30 of the White Paper, the suggested Airways Board will have the authority to merge parts of the two Corporations to get the best possible results. So long as the purpose of this move is to reduce costs, provide the public with a better service, with better career structures for the staff, such proposals can be commended and supported. But if there is any attempt to implement the proposals before agreement about them is reached among affected employees, the resulting problems could prevent any advantages being obtained. The advantage to be got in mixing private and public capital in our transport undertakings is most doubtful. For that reason, the public and private sectors should remain separate, and therefore the two Corporations should not invest in private airlines.
The provision of airports and weather forecasting services, communications, and so on is very expensive. Only a body like the State is fitted to bear it, or perhaps some separate body directly accountable to a Government Department. The Board of Trade might fill that bill. Independence is not possible where there is almost complete reliance on public funds, and in any event policy decisions in these areas will undoubtedly be made, despite all that may be said, by the Government of the day.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Michael Grylls: I warmly welcome the Government's initiative in giving effect in the Bill to one of the most important parts of the Edwards proposals, namely, the encouragement of a second British carrier. I believe that most people will give this proposal full-blooded support and will wish it well. Greater British competition and greater British variety in airlines are definitely in the interests of the travelling consumer. It is in the interests also of the aircraft industry that there should be diversity.
In recent months we have had many debates about the aircraft industry. In and out of the House people always say, quite rightly, that we wish to see a healthy British aircraft industry. But a healthy aircraft industry depends on good orders from British airlines. In this respect the independent airlines in Britain have made a major contribution to the British aircraft industry in continuing to order British. Of course, B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.


have made their contribution, but I believe that orders received from an independent airline which is buying simply on commercial judgment, rather than on any other, carry greater weight. I quote just the example of the BAC111 which is made just outside my constituency but by workers most of whom live within it. The success of the BAC111 has come about partly because B.U.A. has placed very good orders for it and foreign airlines have found this a convincing argument to go on buying BAC111s.
I find the Opposition's policy tonight one of double-talk. Paragraph 10 of their White Paper published in November, 1969 —Cmnd. 4213—says that
the Government favour the licensing of a second British carrier…".
To that extent we are four square. Where they have gone wrong is that they have dodged the issue of exactly how we should be able, in practice, to establish a healthy second force. All we seem to have from right hon. and hon. Members opposite is screams and yells about the rape of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. I believe that the present Government have faced up to the realities and have shown the right determination in establishing a second force. Whatever may be the political fortunes in future years, I believe that we shall see the second force here to stay.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) said, the public have seen that competition means a better service. I should like to refer to the hon. Member's Glasgow service, a point which I tried to explain in an intervention and for which I apologise. The Glasgow, Belfast and Manchester routes previously were served by traditional aircraft—nonjet aircraft—but when the independents arrived they introduced jets on to these routes. They probably did so in the interests of competition. Subsequently B.E.A. had jet aircraft. Therefore, I believe that one can say that to this extent the independents have contributed to a better service to the public on domestic routes.

Mr. Rankin: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that in comparing aircraft he is comparing vessels that are all doing the same speed? Therefore, speed is not such an important competitive factor. What I was dealing with was the total service rendered by the aircraft.

Mr. Grylls: I do not think there is much between us on this point. The fact remains that the jet is the modern fashionable aircraft, and when jet aircraft are operating on a route, generally speaking people will choose to fly on that service.
I want to refer to the contributions made by inclusive tour operators. Nearly every day in our newspapers we see advertisements for tours to the Costa Brava or the Costa Blanca at cheaper rates by tour operators. One may or may not approve of this, but the public seem to like it, and to this extent it has been a contribution. Generally speaking, the independent airlines have played an important part, and, thanks to the proposals of the present Government, they will continue to do so.
I should like my right hon. Friend to consider one particular point arising from the Bill. There was an exchange earlier this afternoon between my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and myself about Fairoaks Airport. I mention this not as a narrow constituency point, but as a general point of principle. Clause 30 relates to byelaws applicable to Authority aerodromes. I have not been able to find any provision for the establishment of byelaws for privately-owned aerodromes. The trouble with Fairoaks and other small privately-owned aerodromes is that they are dependent on a rather woolly general desire that they should have consultative processes, but there is nothing specifically laid down.
What happens is that we have, as it were, expansion by stealth. At Fair-oaks the owner recently signed an agreement with an American helicopter firm for the sole franchise of a particular helicopter. My constituents are horrified at the idea of having helicopters flying all around what is basically a residential area, and I believe that they are quite right. But apparently there is very little that anybody can do about this. Some months ago there was a lot of night flying by private aircraft in the vicinity, and, despite complaints, there was little that could be done.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, will be able to give some assurance that in Committee the Government will consider including in the Bill some provision for control over private aerodromes which I believe


must be giving a lot of trouble to many people. This is not just a political matter. Aircraft can cause a great deal of nuisance and disquiet to people living in these areas, and it is right that provision should be made in the Bill for greater control over this type of flying.
I believe that the Bill generally establishes a sensible and modern framework for the aviation industry. It is, above all, a practical framework which will work. It is the sort of framework which, when it is applied, will ensure that in the years ahead we shall have a healthy and expanding British aviation industry.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I intend to speak briefly to allow as many of my hon. Friend as possible to get into the debate.
Clause 3 has been mentioned from time to time, and it is interesting that the Minister said that this Clause is the key to the new relationship. If that is so, it is a pretty biased relationship. Representations have already been made to hon. Members on both sides of the House by B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
One paragraph in the Edwards Report says:
As for the airlines themselves, both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have a good reputation among their peers and high standing as innovators in the technical and operational fields.
If the Edwards Report can say this in all honesty, that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have got this great reputation amongst their equals in the industry, and they are able as innovators, why is it that in Clause 3 there is a tremendous bias in favour of the independents?
I think I know why. I am reminded of the story of Esau and Jacob. Esau was a hairy man and Jacob was a smooth man. The smooth men in the Tory Party are largely responsible for the drafting of Clause 3. Clause 3 does not give the Corporations equality of opportunity with the independents. If we study the wording of the Clause we find that the duty of the Authority is to "encourage" British airlines in respect of the public sector, but to "secure" in the case of major airlines not controlled by the British Airways Board. Clause 3, in fact, will provide the basis for the opposition

to this Bill. I very much hope that it will not provide a licence to steal further property from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
In the matter of a second force, the Minister clearly said that this was an once-for-all seizure. When he was asked whether he would put that statement into the Measure he declined. He said he wanted the C.A.A. to have independence and freedom of action. Who is ruling here? Is it Parliament or is it the C.A.A.? In this debate we have to deal with the powers of the C.A.A., and seemingly we shall have to do so when the Bill goes into Committee. The Minister has clearly said without equivocation that this is a once-for-all hand-over. Yet he is not prepared for this condition to be written into the Bill. Will he agree in Committee to consider a provision stating that this is a once-for-all hand-over?
People like myself will spend much of our political lives trying to get this decision reversed, and we want the decision to be reversed without the payment o compensation. The riches which are to be handed over on a plate should be taken back by the public airlines, and I will say why. They will be taken back, I hope, without compensation, for the Under-Secretary of State has said that B.O.A.C. asked for compensation but it has been made clear that air service licences are not a form of property in respect of which compensation could properly be given. At the end of the day, therefore, the same rule should apply in the taking back of these motes by B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.
Many of us who were concerned with the Trade Descriptions Act thought that it would cover a much wider variety of activities than has proved to be the case in practice, and I wonder whether the Minister could tell us whether the Civil Aviation Authority might be asked to exercise a degree of consumer protection within its functions. The C.A.A. will be responsible for overseeing inclusive tours, it will be responsible for package tours, and it will be responsible, I believe, for seeing that the consumer, the holidaymaker on the inclusive tour, has a fair deal. At present, however, under the Trade Descriptions Act, the protection given to the traveller is extremely limited.
There have recently been complaints which have not been dealt with as they


should. I shall name one company. I have approached the company, and I have approached the Board of Trade to ask if it would reconsider the matter, and it says it cannot. The company I refer to in this instance is Clarksons, a reputable tour operator, the largest in the country, and one which from time to time gives very good value for money to a large number of holidaymakers, but it is very weak on this side and extremely reluctant to handle genuine complaints.
Will the Minister ask the C.A.A. to consider establishing as part of its functions—a sub-committee, perhaps, or through part of the Board—to take up genuine complaints from people who have had holidays arranged by air operators? This can be a matter of vital importance, particularly to the individual. The Trade Descriptions Act does not cover it. The small man who has had his holiday ruined has to go to court if he wants to take action, but he intensely dislikes having to go to court; he is frightened by it. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will get his Small Claims Courts Bill to facilitate such matters, but, until such time as that is on the Statute Book, I should like the Civil Aviation Authority to have power to compel a tour operator to investigate every complaint and try to give the small man a fair deal. I urge the Under-Secretary of State to consider that aspect of the problem.
There have been references in the debate to air safety, and there was something of an altercation between two hon. Members over the fact that Edwards said that the public Corporations had a better record than the independents in this respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) was challenged on that, but what he said is true. On page 265, Edwards acknowledges that there are airlines in the independent sector which have an excellent record, but I ask the House to note what Edwards says in paragraph 1082:
Although the Safety Review has indicated that the Independents, taken as a whole, have a less satisfactory safety record than the two Corporations…
That is quite clear, and it then points out that certain independents also have a good record.

Mr. Wilkinson: I emphasised that one should not be dogmatic in one's interpre-

tation of such statistics as are quoted in the Edwards Report. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said that, if one compared the most favourable statistics in the public sector with the most favourable statistics in the independent sector—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I did not say that.

Mr. Wilkinson: —a significant margin of safety in favour of the public sector was shown. This is not true, if one takes the comparison of B.E.A. and B.U.A. Moreover, these statistics show that the kinds of operation involved are not directly comparable, since the independents often serve into small airfields on inclusive tour and charter work, which is quite dissimilar from the longer and medium-haul operations of the public sector.

Mr. Carter-Jones: As an ex-member of air crew, I should deplore the use of any unsafe airfields. All airfields should be equally safe, as far as one can make them, and one should not use an airfield where there is grave risk. I am surprised at the implication of what the hon. Gentleman said.
Edwards said that the independents have a less satisfactory safety record than the two Corporations. As competition develops—some of us are rather alarmed about this—and prices fall dramatically, we should take heed of the warning given in Edwards. As competition intensifies, we must make quite sure that it is not at the expense of safety. In the air, it must at all times be safety first. There is no other way. I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to that matter also in his winding-up speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar pointed out that the one thing lacking from the Bill is good industrial relations machinery. Edwards has been extensively quoted today, but I quote him once again, and draw to the attention of the House two points made in the summary on page 243:
The development of good human relationships is essential for the future prosperity of the British civil air transport industry.
Second,
The U.K. airlines should examine ways in which greater staff participation and involvement can be achieved. We commend the


experiments in the field of communications that have been instituted in some airlines.
If safety is to be taken into account, and if good industrial relations are to be taken into account, I very much hope that in Committee the Government will accept Amendments to Clause 3 and will give a guarantee that no more of the profitable routes of the public sector are pinched for the sake of their political friends.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. James Hill: In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade said that this was a period of rapid change. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) recalled to us the days when he would hurtle down from Scotland at 90 m.p.h. in a De Havilland Rapide, bringing back memories of my own past. But my right hon. Friend is absolutely right; this is a period of rapid change.
My right hon. Friend spoke of the way in which the Bill would regulate the four departments or functions enumerated on page 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum. It seemed to me that the bringing of three of them under the same roof made good sense, but I am not so sure about the fourth. I take it that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will explain why the Authority will operate some aerodromes. The words are "some aerodromes", and, when one looks inside, one finds that they are Aberdeen and the Scottish Highlands and Islands aerodromes. If that be the fourth department, it seems to me that the British Airports Authority might be coerced—it would have to be coerced because there is a loss in running these airports—into taking over this liability from the Civil Aviation Authority. There are probably very important reasons why that is not so which will come out later.
The question whether Caledonian-B.U.A. will be compensated when it is stripped of its routes, if the Opposition ever form the Government again, is becoming an almost perennial problem. As has been made only too plain in debates, its rights to the routes are licences, pieces of paper. B.O.A.C. was not compensated for the loss of routes, and there is no justification for Caledonian-B.U.A. to receive compensation. I should very much like to have clarification of the

position, because it will obviously be raised time and again in Committee.
In a first-class speech my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) spoke of one or two things that have worried him, including the omission of any airports policy from the Bill. What a wonderful opportunity this would have been to have an overall policy for the United Kingdom!
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) also mentioned a lack of consultative machinery. My hon. Friend said that there should be consultative committees for the benefit of local residents. I do not know whether my experience is exceptional, but the Southampton airport company, which runs a private airfield, has set up a consultative committee composed of all sections of residents and industry in the area. The company pays its expenses, and the accommodation is kindly given by the Eastleigh local authority. This shows that it can be done, even where the airfield concerned is a small private one.
I was very pleased to see in the Gallery during the afternoon the three personages responsible for much of the Bill, Sir Ronald Edwards and the two Chairmen of the Corporations. I should like to have said while they were present that I, too, have great praise for the Corporations. I have worked for one. They have an outstanding safety record, and they treat their employees very well. It would have been nice to say that while they were here.
The hon. Member for Poplar spoke about a bias towards the private operator, and referred to Clause 3(1)(b), which speaks of securing
that at least one major British airline which is not controlled by the British Airways Board has opportunities to participate in providing,…
It is clear that if we set up a second force we want to make sure that it remains in being. To my mind that is the simple object of that provision—not to give any bias towards a private operator but to make sure that it remains in being.
There has been talk of medical departments. I have heard of one other example where slight merging might be helpful. I heard, I think from the Chairman of B.E.A., that both the major airlines have


separate computer units, neither of which will work from the other's software. I believe that they purchased them at about the same period, so it would have been simple to arrange that the software was the same.
The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) said that we were nose-diving. He has all the aeronautical terms. Apparently, most of his constituents work at London Airport. I think that the hon. Gentleman was taking too frosty a view. Aviation is going through a period of self-inflicted injury. We have had a Post Office strike that lost that organisation £2 million, and various other things have happened that I will not repeat.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) rightly raised the subject of private aviation. If we could have written into the Bill an airports policy, we could also have written into it a policy for private aviation, a much-neglected part of aviation. The majority of commercial airline pilots come from that sector, so we should not overlook it.
It is only too obvious that the Bill has been in the embryo stage since 1967. The Chairmen of both the nationalised Corporations must have known from the Edwards Report that the Bill is for the eventual merging of the Corporations. My view, borne out by the Report, is that merging will not create stability and efficiency. We have imagined that mergers of great companies or corporations will lead to more efficiency, but this is not always so, as we have seen. I hope that the Corporations are not pressed along the path of complete merger until the Bill has been given a thorough testing period.
Although the Bill has been introduced to hand over responsibility to the Civil Aviation Authority, the Secretary of State still has many reins and bridles to control the industry in excess of what I believe even he would desire. Perhaps the draftsmen have covered every crevice and crack by giving him the last word. The idea of the Bill is to create a buffer between Whitehall and airline managements, to give the managements the ability to get on with the job without too much Government interference, something in which on this side we firmly believe. If that is so, I hope that in Committee

many of the provisions giving the Secretary of State powers to oversee matters can be removed.
One of the immediately obvious flaws of the Bill is on the financial side. We get back only one-third on our air navigational services and only a one-third return on the operation of aerodromes, while the Air Transport Licensing Board recovers all that it spends and the Air Registration Board recovers two-thirds. I look forward to the day—I think that my right hon. Friend said that it would be in 1977–78—when the Authority will be financially self-supporting and not, as at present, receiving back only one-third of the outlay.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I hope that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) will forgive me if I do not continue the debate on the main topics with which he was concerned.
I wish to make it clear at the outset that I am fundamentally opposed to the Bill because the whole history of civil aviation licensing in Britain has been one of capitulation to established interests and particularly to established private interests.
During the 'fifties we saw the springing up and increasing development of what were called "colonial coach services". During the 'sixties we saw the licensing of independent domestic services with catastrophic fares increases. Under the Labour Government—I was totally opposed to the concept of the second force—we saw the debarring of the B.O.A.C.-B.U.A. merger. Now, written into Clause 3 of this Measure, we have a lifelong guarantee that while this Bill remains on the Statute Book, a second force airline must exist.
I therefore fundamentally disagree with the philosophy expounded in the past by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). I do not accept the need for a second force and I have never accepted the need for a Bill of this kind, particularly when the evidence now before us from the United States and many other countries where a policy of route competition has been applied reveals fares increases, falling load factors and serious financial difficulties. To introduce a Measure like this now,


which fosters more competition, shows a complete ignorance on the part of the Government of international and domestic aviation matters.
We need a strong civil aviation authority which will act as a watchdog over the economic and financial affairs of the industry. If we are to have a combination of the American C.A.B. and our F.A.A., it must be much stronger than it could possibly be under the Bill. I had grave doubts whether the proposed C.A.A. would have become "Mr. Mason's Bulldog". I have no doubt that the proposed Authority under this Bill will become "Mr. Noble's Poodle".
If one looks at the Dowers which the C.A.A. is given one is bound to need convincing that they are strong enough to stand up to the Secretary of State and to stand up against the airlines, particularly in the independent sector. Indeed, it seems a wry comment to have to make that the Civil Aeronautics Board in the United States exercises more strict control over British independent operators than our C.A.A. will do.
When an hon. Gentleman opposite spoke earlier about the vast amount of financial disclosure required by the American C.A.B., particularly for foreign carriers' permits, I could not help thinking that the C.A.B. will be asking for far more financial information than the C.A.A. will ask of both independent and State operators in this country.
The 1960 Act never made it quite clear who was in charge, the A.T.L.B. or the Minister. Nor does this Bill. The Secretary of State and Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt be giving slightly different interpretations of these provisions, but if one looks at Clauses 3 and 4, in which some categorical directives are given to the Authority, and if one goes on to look at Clause 24(2), where the Secretary of State can stop the C.A.A. functioning completely—he can stop it dead in its tracks—then if the Parliamentary Secretary intends to claim that this will be an autonomous body, I must be allowed to beg to differ.
Consider, for example, safety. It is well established that the safety performance of United Kingdom airline operators is worse than that of American and Australian operators. It is about

equal to most of the average European operators. Thus, to say that Britain has in the past had a "No-better-than-average performance record" is fair, and I say that taking into account the Jay and Edwards Reports and other documents and statistics which are available. Unfortunately, when I look at the powers which the Authority will have, I cannot see that situation being improved.
Under Clause 22 the Authority is not told in sufficient detail the amount of information for which it must ask for the granting of an air service licence. There is also no provision in Clause 24 for the Authority to publish the reasons for not granting a licence. The same can be said of the powers to compel disclosure. Not half enough importance is given to the whole procedure by which one applies for a licence. One must give certain financial information and then, if the licence is refused, one cannot find out why it has been refused.
In addition, it would appear that most operators can appeal to the Secretary of State. Thus, to claim that this will be a strong autonomous watchdog over the industry when, first, it has no teeth and, secondly, one can always appeal against its decisions, is to claim the rediculous because one is starting out by creating a weak and impotent body.

Mr. Burden: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is extremely interested in safety. Is he aware that one of the relevant points regarding the apparent greater safety, or lesser accident, rate in Australia and America lies in the fact that they are concerned there mostly with long hauls? He will appreciate that there are greater dangers with short hauls. The result is that the general picture in Europe as a whole is likely to show more accidents than are shown in Australia and America.

Mr. Huckfield: If the hon. Gentleman is making an excuse for the rather lamentable safety performance of British Eagle, I accept his comments.

Mr. Burden: Cheap.

Mr. Huckfield: I speak in my capacity as Air Safety Adviser to the British Safety Council. The C.A.A. will not have the power to require disclosure. Nor will it be required to publish the


details of licence refusals. There will be virtually unlimited appeals against it. In addition, because of the experimental abolition of part of the first provision, there will be tough price competition. I am not convinced, therefore, that the C.A.A. will have sufficient powers to govern the licensing of this competitive industry.
We have now reached the stage when many of the independent operators are screwing themselves down into ever-tighter contracts with inclusive tour operators. We also have accident reports like the British Eagle Viscount disaster at Munich, and the Donaldson International Airways' flouting of the pilots' hours regulations. I am convinced that we need a tougher body, with much stronger powers to compel disclosure and powers to go into minute financial and other details, including the facts about the management structures of many airlines.
I will only briefly consider the charter sphere, in which I have an interest. It would appear that we are going some way to tighten up on some of the rule benders—but I am not particularly concerned with the rule benders because I regard many of the rules as being foolish, anyway.
I hope that the licensing of tour operators and some of the charter airlines will mean our taking a first step towards completely abolishing Resolution 045, of I.A.T.A. and some of the other more foolish regulations, since we have now reached the stage when charter tickets can be bought over the counter. We should revise and simplify the procedures so as to give the ordinary man in the street a chance to fly to far-away places without making him go through a lot of stupid rules and regulations.
At the weekend we had the case of Laker Airways having a flight stopped at Gatwick. I do not want these flights to be discouraged. If there is to be a stoppage of cheap flights, then I hope the rules and regulations under which the present system works will be altered.
I will be equally brief on the question of the handling of air traffic control services in this country. Under the Bill, this will be done jointly by the Secretary of State and the C.A.A. I have developed a substantial interest in the new system

of air traffic control at London Airport called Linesman Mediator. I have hardly received satisfactory answers to some of my questions about the Linesman Mediator.
It would appear that if we are to have the kind of situation in which we are to have half and half control between the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of Trade and Industry, it will be even more difficult to get information about linesman Mediator. For example, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to say something about the meeting at Gatwick last Thursday night between the Guild of Air Traffic Controllers and the Guild of Airline Pilots. I wonder whether he would like to say something about the fact that, despite Linesman Mediator's having been operational since 1st February, the work load on the air traffic controllers is already more than the work load imposed on A.T.C. controllers under the old system.
I wonder whether he would like to say whether he expects Linesman Mediator to be able to cope, with F.P.P.S. or without it, with the Easter traffic load. I can tell him now that there is a great deal of feeling in the industry that unless something is done about this, and particularly the Linesman Mediator part of it, we shall get some serious traffic delays around the London area, particularly over Easter. All the complaints we have had about night charter operations and about the noise and nuisance of the regular and late-night flights will be amplified and multiplied with the increasing congestion and delay which will be nourished by Linesman Mediator. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could come clean on that.
I do not have any too strong feelings about the board which will have the task of examining the possibilities of uniting B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I have always thought that they were rather different operations, B.O.A.C. primarily a long-haul carrier and B.E.A. primarily a short-haul carrier, with which, so it is always claimed, it is difficult to make comparisons. I suppose that there will be scope for rationalisation between the two charter fleets and room for rationalisation in other sectors, but I hope that the Government will bear in mind the fundamentally different characteristics of the two Corporations.
I finish as I began by saying that I am not sure whether we should have one body for the economic side of the industry and another for the safety side. Whether we have them separate, as in the United States, or together, as is proposed, is a matter upon which I am not prepared to pronounce at the moment. Whatever happens, whether we have a combination of the two or two separate bodies, we have to give more teeth than the Bill suggests. The Secretary of State and the Minister will have to work very hard to convince many of us on this side of the House that it is an authority with sufficient teeth.
Apart from that, as it appears that on most fundamental matters the Secretary of State will be able to over-rule the C.A.A. anyway, we shall have a weak, nibbling and impotent body. I can see why the Government want a weak, nibbling and impotent body. It is because the Secretary of State wants to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise the future of the second force. If we are to have a weak Civil Aviation Authority just to preserve the second force, if we are to tailor the whole of our civil aviation licensing policy just to suit the pockets and the whims of those who have backed the Conservative Party and helped to build up a second force, that is a bad and shocking reason for a new aviation policy. It is for that reason that I shall vote in the Lobby tonight against the Bill.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I wish to speak briefly in support of the excellent speeches that we have had from my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings (Mr. Warren), Woking (Mr. Onslow) and Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) who was himself an airline pilot for many years. I particularly welcome the fact that after waiting for two years—it seemed interminably—for Edwards, and then having to suffer even more procrastination because the last Government could not face the ideological consequences of legislating the provisions in the White Paper, we are seeing some action. The reasons for delay by the last Government were hinted at by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) who condemned so wholeheartedly the proposals of his own party. This is a long overdue Measure and I welcome it because uncertainty is

the most damaging feature of all in aviation whether in the manufacturing or transport sectors.
I emphasise the criticisms that have been made on both sides of the House about the appeals procedure and the fact that later the power of the Secretary of State will be over-mighty. I particularly regret that we were not able to follow Edwards and have an independent adjudicator to whom appeals on air route licensing could be referred. My right hon. Friend said that the Government were better able to adjudicate on economic criteria in this respect, but I believe that this could conceivably be opening the argument to charges of political bias against whichever Government are in power. For that reason there is a strong case for an independent adjudicator.
It is a great pity that the Government were not able to bring forward the White Paper in which the guidelines of air transport policy are to be delineated. This would have given us a more comprehensive framework within which to judge the Measure. A number of issues will be raised in this White Paper and we await it with great anticipation. I mention one such issue now, the whole question of airports and airports policy.
The hon. Member for Woking particularly criticised the lack of an airports policy and I think he is right to do so. As a Member for Bradford I have been at the receiving end of what might be regarded as a backlash resulting from the lack of a national airports policy. Without being too parochial I will try to show the sort of dangers that can arise. Both parties when in Government have said that where possible airports should be run on a local basis. In the West Riding at Yeadon we had a local airport that was running well and profitably and which merely needed a small extension to the runway. Because it was thought that at some future date a national airports policy might suggest that a regional airport should be at Thorne Waste, or some other place, our own local claims which were very much based on regional development criteria were set aside.
I welcome the positive stipulation that criteria on regional development will be taken into account in the formulation of airports policy and management of airports. This is an important advance. It


is something only hinted at by Edwards and we are being much more positive in making the suggestions that this legislation will enact.
On the other side of the airports coin there is the question of environment and aircraft noise which are to be a governmental as opposed to a C.A.A. responsibility. I am not entirely sure about that. Questions of aircraft noise are very much a function of operational criteria and therefore the C.A.A., as a most expert body, should adjudicate and lay down the law as far as possible in this respect. Otherwise there is yet again the danger of political considerations entering into it. There is the danger of a particular Secretary of State feeling bound for political reasons to come down in favour of environmental grounds against what could be the best arguments economically.
I come to the question of safety. Hon. Members opposite are very keen to denigrate the performance of the independent airlines. The statistics in the Edwards Report—and they are the only ones I have; I know that they are several years out of date—show that the State airlines, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., had three notifiable accidents per 100,000 stage flights on average, and the independents, excluding British Eagle—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Oh!

Mr. Wilkinson: By excluding British Eagle I am being slightly unfavourable to my analysis—had 3·2 per 100,000 stage flights on average. That percentage includes British United Air Ferries and British United Airways group. There is a very small statistical margin.

Mr. Huckfield: rose—

Mr. Wilkinson: I shall not give way; other hon. Members want to speak. The margin is so small—

Mr. Huckfield: If British Eagle is left out.

Mr. Wilkinson: —as not to be statistically significant. If there is any significance, it derives from the fact that many operators, for reasons best known to themselves, and because their passengers want to go there, operate into airports like Ljubljana or Barcelona and others which readily spring to mind, like Geneva or Innsbruck, which, for geographical

reasons, are difficult to operate into. An hon. Member opposite said that all airports should have the same standard of safety. That is all very well, but one cannot bulldoze mountains into the sea to make them safe. Hon. Members opposite should remember that when they pontificate so dogmatically.
I wish to say a few words about the two important boards which I have not mentioned—the Air Registration Board, or the Airworthiness Requirements Board as it is to become, and the British Airways Board. I am slightly apprehensive about this superimposition of the Airways Board without clearer directions from the Secretary of State on its functions. I see from the Bill that the Board is to report periodically to Parliament on its progress. That is admirable. But I should like a date set by which the feasibility study of B.E.A./B.O.A.C. amalgamation should be concluded by the Board, otherwise its existence will be self-justifying and it could be a hindrance to efficiency and thrustful management in both the Corporations. I suggest that the review must be completed by 1975. I would hope that by then we would have had experience of supersonic aircraft in operation and a long period of operation of wide-bodied airliners. Without a thorough evaluation of the impact of both new developments on the air transport scene we shall not be able fully to comprehend the right pattern of the State sector.
I echo what has been said by the more expert Members on this side of the House about the Airworthiness Requirements Board. I do not entirely see the logic of incorporating the A.R.B. within the C.A.A. It fulfilled its functions superlatively well before. It had a worldwide reputation. Under the new scheme it is to be consulted rather than laying down the final criteria of airworthiness itself. The formation of the Board will not be as entirely professional as it used to be. Only up to half the Board will in future be representative of the various sections of the industry—manufacturing, air transport, piloting and air traffic—whereas in the past more than half was. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give an assurance that the balance will revert more to the old pattern.
The time is getting late so I shall conclude by saying that, broadly speaking, I welcome this Measure, which is an


overdue one. I particularly welcome the sensible allocation of routes structure between the second force and the public sector and in particular I welcome the designation of two services to the B.U.A. Caledonian Paris route. I know that Le Bourget has its disadvantages, but it will, as in the domestic sector, provide competition which is admirable for the travelling public.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I recognise that by this time of night a great number of points have already been made by my hon. Friends and by hon. Members opposite, and there should be some time left for those who still wish to participate in the debate, but I want to deal very briefly with the contents of the Measure set against the Labour Government's White Paper of November, 1969, where the point was made in the first paragraph that the civil aviation industry is one of the world's fastest growing industries. That, of course, is still true today, and will continue to be true for a great deal of time to come. In this, of course, lie some of the technical and ensuing economic problems with which we shall have to contend.
I want to refer to the objectives mentioned by my right hon. Friend in his White Paper when he said that the industry must for various good reasons be regulated throughout the world. He went on to say that there is need for the highest standards of safety; there is need for control of aircraft noise; there is need for stability and regularity of public services; and there is the inescapable fact that international services depend upon a network of agreements reached with other countries defining traffic rights which airlines may enjoy. This is, of course, what this Measure should be all about.
It is on the last point that I want to make the first observation, and that is, that the problems which we face at our airports at this time, with overcrowding, are because the industry is one of the fastest growing in the world, and these increased demands on our airports raise air traffic control problems and safety problems which were referred to by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), but, of course, from the point of view of the public use of our airports, there are problems of access in getting

to and from them which might easily offset the advantages which may accrue later on from S.S.T. when supersonic travel comes to be familiar to ordinary passengers.
B.O.A.C. has worldwide operations and, like other airlines, is concerned with many bilateral agreements which have to be negotiated under the Bermuda Agreement of 1946, on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. These treaties are not easily negotiated because of environmental and other problems, to which I have referred, in airport congestion.
There is increasing and natural public reaction to noise and pollution and night jet operation through charter firms and others operating what are scheduled services in all but name, and this problem has not received the attention which it should have received from the Government. There is urgent need to have a national examination of the possibilities and the potential contribution which can be made by S.T.O.L. and V.T.O.L. projects, and it is with these with which we should be mainly concerned at this time.
Undoubtedly the advances in rotary wing aircraft, helicopters, the development of high-lift devices, of S.T.O.L., and the advances in engine design, and V.T.O.L., all these advances made by various manufacturers—and there are a number of them in this country which have done work on these things—make it really imperative that the Government have a comprehensive policy on this matter, because it is not a matter which concerns manufacturers only. It is a problem which concerns civil aviation, which concerns airports on both sides of the Channel, and local authorities, and air traffic control and, of course, air safety rules. It is essential that we now get down to a policy, with all the interests of these people getting together, to make sure that we develop as fast as we can the potential of V.T.O.L. and S.T.O.L. aircraft to make their contribution with the conventional forms.
The most controversial aspect of the Bill, to which my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred, is in Clause 3(1)(b), which states that there is a duty
to secure that at least one major British airline which is not controlled by the British Airways Board has opportunities to participate in providing…services".


That seems rather odd. The Minister must explain how he will secure that one major airline provides these independent, second-line services. If he has no power to make it do so, his only way is to attract it by giving incentives and guaranteeing its profits and returns, which are not guaranteed to the publicly-owned airlines, which are referred to in Clause 3(1)(a). This clearly means that the private operators will be in a very much better, stronger and more lucrative position than those who have to carry out the public service of running the State-owned airlines of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.
It seems clear that the misgivings of my hon. Friends are justified, because in subsection (3)(a) of Clause 3 we have the skimmed milk for the British publicly-owned operators while the cream goes in subsection (3)(b) to the private operators who, without having any duty imposed upon them, will have to be invited with that very rich cream on the milk to take Dart. It is in this respect that some of us will have misgivings about the way in which the private sector makes the profits, even at the expense of running the airline. I would like to think that safety will not be one of the factors which is sacrified to bring this about.
The other aspect of my right hon. Friend's White Paper to which I have referred concerns human relations. Hon. Members, on both sides, have expressed concern that the question of human relations is not as evident in the Bill as it might have been. In his White Paper, my right hon. Friend spoke about the constructive approach to questions of human relations and, in particular, emphasised the value of proper consultations and negotiating machinery. There is no evidence of this being tackled in the Bill.
The previous Government shared the hope of the Edwards Committee that the industry of the future would offer stability of employment and attractive career opportunities and welcomed the Committee's view that high levels of labour productivity were essential, not only to the industry's well-being in an increasingly competitive environment, but also as a basis to afford high levels of pay to skilled and efficient staff. Here again, although the airlines have a fairly good record in human and staff relations, I

should like to think that there was more in the Bill to safeguard those provisions for the future. The previous Administration were anxious to ensure greater employee participation. These are the points to which we shall be looking when the Bill goes into Committee.
I want briefly to refer to future aircraft. We have in mind Concorde, on which very little is at present known concerning the future, although we appreciate that this aircraft has come up to expectations technically and that the specification has been complied with. Those of us who have heard the experiments with Concorde against the VC10 and the Boeing 707 will recognise that from the ground approach angle, the Concorde is certainly no noisier than any of those other aircraft, and we have the assurance that there may be restrictions on flights over land.
In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) commented on the Government's intervention—or, it may be, interference —in the price aspect of Concorde. Most of us would hope that B.O.A.C. can set the lead to the world's airlines by buying this aircraft. Although one recognises that the Government of the day have an interest in the price to be charged, because the nation has invested a substantial sum in the project, one has to be careful that the Government do not impose a price level which makes it well nigh impossible for B.O.A.C. to set the example, which it ought to do, by buying this aircraft.
I am pleased that the Government have decided to ignore the advice of one backbencher opposite who last week asked that B.O.A.C. should be instructed to buy Concorde. I hope I am not being unduly suspicious, but I can see here a danger that if the Government want to get out of their commitment to the British aircraft industry and to Concorde they can do it quite nicely by not taking the plane and saying that B.O.A.C. has failed to put in an order. This would make the future of Concorde dismal indeed. We shall be looking carefully at the negotiation stage to see that this does not happen.
Concorde is the aircraft of the future, subject to other aspects also being considered. Those of us who have been


fortunate enough to travel long distances, for example between here and New York, to Johannesburg and to Australia—and have taken 32 hours to reach Australia—will appreciate the advantages of being able to get there in half the time and set about our duties sooner. We are told by the scientists not to sign any contract for at least a couple of days after a long air journey, and Concorde can make a substantial contribution there.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who recently accompanied me to Australia on a round-the-world trip which took a week, will appreciate that Concorde has a potential in that part of the world without some of the environmental problems which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) tried to iron out in the United States. The future there is good.
In discussing airlines, we are discussing not the problem of conveying passengers from one part of the world to another, but the future of the British aircraft industry. We should recognise its substantial contribution to our export trade, to the balance of payments and to home demand. The value per employee in the aerospace industry is twice the figure for United Kingdom manufacturing industry as a whole. The industry earns about £1 million per working day from exporting. B.A.C. alone has exported £400 million worth in the 20 years to date, and supplied £380 million worth on the home market, apart from the spin-off. Undoubtedly, other aircraft manufacturers in this country also have a commendable record.
The aircraft industry needs stability which can only come from long-term planning and increasing public participation. No one in private enterprise can carry the immense responsibilities, costs and risks involved if we are to stay in the industry, as I am sure we must in future.
For these reasons, apart from others which have been mentioned by my hon. Friends, I support the Bill, whilst having the gravest misgivings about the part to be played by private enterprise and the threat which that imposes on those who have to carry out public commitments in the national sector.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Waltham-stow, East): I wish to give the Bill my general support. The Measure is badly needed and I suspect that most hon. Members, despite what some of them may have said in this debate, realise that it has to come.
I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) about the Bill's drafting. It is not good enough that we should be presented with a Bill which seems to leave so much to be desired in terms of clarity and simplification of language. I remember my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saying that the one thing he hoped to be remembered for was the fact that he had managed to put Bills into the sort of English that anybody could understand.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend why Section 37(2)(b) has been included in the Bill, it reads,
The Board shall not have power to manufacture air-frames, aero-engines or airscrews except in so far as the Secretary of State provides by order that it shall have such a power.
When that information would appear to be self-evident. Then Clause 38 says:
It shall be the duty of the Board to exercise its powers in a manner calculated to secure that the air transport services provided by the group are developed to the best advantage and the resources of the group are used to the best advantage.
What sort of criterion is "the best advantage"? Should not that phrase be spelt out in more detail? The Bill is full of these vague phrases and statements and one wonders why they were ever included.
The Bill is a fairly momentous step forward in British civil aviation. The setting up of a Civil Aviation Authority means that a new piece of machinery is being created by which the safety of air travel, aircraft and air landing systems is to be governed. If we are setting up such a piece of machinery should we not ask ourselves whether the Civil Aviation Authority as outlined in the Bill will do what we require of such an authority?
The drafters of the Bill have had the advantage of the Edwards Report—that large volume which has been so carefully put together—on which to base the various Clauses in the Bill. Therefore, I am somewhat disappointed that having


produced their Bill they have not considered exactly what function they want the Civil Aviation Authority to have. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that this Authority has been hedged about with ifs and buts and all sorts of recommendations to the Secretary of State instead of being given the teeth and strength it must possess if it is to be able to stand on its own feet and effectively govern civil aviation.
I refer particularly to the question of airports. The drafters of the Bill apparently found themselves wondering whether they could take what seems to be the logical step of setting up a national airport authority, or whether they should leave the curious mixture of ownership which exists at present. We know that the British Airports Authority was set up in 1964. Any authority which rejoices in the name of British Airports Authority might reasonably be expected to control the destinies of the 42 civil aerodromes in this country. In fact it manages only four of them. Therefore it is not a British airports authority. It is at best a London airports authority. As we know from the Bill, the intention is that the Authority should go on looking after these four airports. Only the airports which were under the old Board of Trade will now come under the C.A.A., and its responsibility for them remains more or less the same as the Board's.
Much expert advice has been brought forward to suggest that there should be a national airports plan, a view shared by Edwards and by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which has recently been looking at the British Airports Authority. It says on page xxxix of its Report, in recommendation (3):
Preparation of a national airports plan should be started in earnest without waiting for the establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority.
There is also a reference to the need for either a national airports authority or national co-ordination by the new Civil Aviation Authority of the airports of this country. Finally on page xxxvii the Select Committee says of the British Airports Authority:
The origins of the Authority lie more in the chance of history than in the application of any general policy for airports. The absence of a national airport policy at the moment

can…impede the Authority in planning the future development of its airports.
A civil aviation authority that does not accept airports as part of civil aviation seems to me to be seriously missing in one of its major functions. I hope the Government will now consider whether they should provide the nation with a national airports authority under the C.A.A. which has overriding authority to manage and plan the sort of airports that we shall require. Many of us who took part in the debate on the third London airport will remember how, over and over again, there was reference to a lack of a national airports policy, and the feeling that, somehow, Mr. Justice Roskill had been asked to provide one—although it was not in his terms of reference.
At a time when aviation is going through a revolutionary period, as the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) said, with V.T.O.L. aircraft, S.T.O.L. aircraft, and Q.T.O.L. aircraft—or quiet-take-off-and-landing aircraft—coming on the scene, we must consider the planning of our airports with much more care. I beg the Government not to regard them as a kind of Cinderella, to be looked after at a later date.
As to environmental factors, we heard at the weekend that the Americans have decided to cancel their S.S.T., because the environmentalist lobby in the United States has won the day. By the same token, I wonder why we are pussyfooting on the subject of noise and pollution from aircraft, as we are doing in the Bill, and why we are not prepared to be more forthright and to give the C.A.A. power to lay down acceptable standards.
I was horrified by a recent answer that my right hon. Friend gave me, to the effect that no legal penalties are inflicted on those who exceed noise limits at Heathrow and Gatwick, and that our only instrument of control is the pious hope that it will not happen again. That is not good enough. Noise is intolerable. We have all said it, and we must be prepared to do something about it. If the Department cannot put up a better showing than it has done in the past we should set up some other sort of organisation to control it.
Even if we cannot give the C.A.A. total control of noise, can we not set up a tripartite control organisation consisting of the C.A.A., the Department of


Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment? As well as aircraft noise let us not forget that smoke from aircraft engines is very objectionable to many people. It is high time that we took further measures, including penalties, to stop that sort of pollution.
I have said on a previous occasion that my company works for the Air Registration Board. It has often been state that that remarkable organisation has proved itself not only in this country but all over the world. It is a remarkable organisation because it represents the whole of the aircraft industry, and it probably has closer contacts with the industry and aircraft users than any other single organisation in the country. It also has an executive function. The A.R.B. is now independent, but I do not disagree that it should be a member of the C.A.A. What does worry me is that under the provisions of Clause 27(2) (c) it can be overruled by the C.A.A. I find it difficult to see why the C.A.A. should need power to override an organisation whose task it is to ensure the safe operation of aircraft. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend can tell me in what circumstances the recommendations of the A.R.B. might ever need to be overruled.
Finally I am not so sure that we are right to condemn the British Airways Board. We have begun to see the blurring of the edges between B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. on a number of routes. For instance B.E.A. flies to North Africa, which is not in Europe. B.E.A. used to fly to Moscow but it was then decided that the route should be given to B.O.A.C. There is a certain overlapping. The Airways Board may help to clarify and rationalise that overlapping.
I also suspect that we may see a greater similarity of types of aircraft in the future than in the past, and it would not be inconceivable to imagine B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. buying different versions of the Lockheed 1011.
It is a pity that when we are thinking of the Airways Board redefining the rôle of the Corporations we should not also be making up our minds about those routes they operate almost as a social service. I am thinking particularly of the Highlands and Islands route, which

B.E.A. provides as a very major form of social service. The Corporation is not required to provide those routes and it loses £300,000 a year in doing so. Is it not time that we provided B.E.A. with a subsidy to run them rather than lumping them in with their commercial operations.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Milian: The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) made a number of interesting points. I will not say now whether or not I agree with them, but such points as he and many other hon. Members have raised should give us a very fruitful Committee stage.
The Bill to a large extent follows the Labour Government's White Paper, and for that reason, and for a number of other reasons, my advice to my hon. Friends will be not to vote against it. Nevertheless, as I hope to make clear, a number of points require clarification, and in regard to a number of other points we shall seek to amend the Bill.
The Edwards Committee, the previous Labour Government, and now the present Government all came to the conclusion that there is a very strong case for bringing B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. closer together so as to have a greater coordination of their activities. That is the basic argument for the establishment of the British Airways Board. The basic argument against is the fact that B.E.A. is a short-haul and medium-haul airline whereas B.O.A.C. is long-haul, and many of the things they do are not comparable with one another.
There is, nevertheless, an area of overlap in which greater co-ordination between the two major airlines ought to provide very considerable economic and other benefits. A number of these were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in the White Paper: industrial relations, engineering maintenance, training of staff, computer facilities, advertising, marketing, the co-ordination of route development, and the important question of aircraft requirement. The kind of set-up established under the Bill should enable a more comprehensive look to be taken at the very important considerations involved.
Once the principle of closer coordination between the two airlines had


been accepted, the decision that had to be made was whether the British Airways Board should be some kind of body superimposed on the two existing airlines and having a co-ordinating function over them, but on a fairly loose rein, or whether it should be given very considerable powers including, ultimately, the power of directing the activities of the two airlines. The previous Government took the view, with which I very much agree, that to have a Board without sufficient powers would make the present situation worse rather than better and that, therefore, if the principle were to be accepted, such a Board would need to have real powers. We are glad to see that the present Government have reached that conclusion, too, and have embodied it in Clause 37.
It is not yet clear from the Bill exactly which way the Airways Board will operate. It would help us greatly, even at this early stage of our consideration, to receive more information about the projected Board than we received from the Minister earlier. For example, he was not able to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) whether there would be any qualification or background experience looked for in the Board members. There is no indication whether it is intended that the Board members should be full time or part time or a mixture of both. We are left very short of details about exactly how the Government envisage that the Board will work.
The Board is to be given as its first task the job of reviewing the organisation of the Corporations and producing recommendations for change. The Bill provides that these recommendations for change will be no more than that: they are basically recommendations to the Secretary of State. One feature of the Bill which has been widely commented on by hon. Members on both sides is the extent to which the Secretary of State enters into the reckoning with real power at every point, whether in connection with the Airways Board or the Civil Aviation Authority. There may be a case for saying that if anything as radical as the dissolution of the two Corporations was proposed the Secretary of State should have an important say. That may also be true if a substantial reorganisation of the work of the Board and the

two Corporations is projected. However, the Bill is so drafted that the Board will have very great difficulty in doing anything in the way or reorganisation without the Secretary of State's specific authority. We shall wish to examine this in Committee.

Mr. Burden: The Bill does not give power for dissolution of both Corporations, but only one.

Mr. Millan: I will not argue with the hon. Member on that. We are talking about the question of the integration of the Corporations under the Board. It is irrelevant whether that is done by dissolving both Corporations or merging them in some other way. The net result is the same.
The Board will take over two airlines of a very high standard of operation, as has been stressed by my hon. Members, by the Edwards Committee, and by every authority which has considered the Corporations' operations. They are airlines also which are running on a profitable basis. The last Annual Report of B.O.A.C. made the very important point that, even if there had not been a write-off of capital five or six years ago, the profits which have been earned since then would have enabled the Corporation, taking the whole period of its operations into account, now to be in a profitable position, having paid its way over the whole of that period. The Government, sufficiently convinced by the experiment with public dividend capital in B.O.A.C., introduced an Order only last Friday morning to extend that for another five years. This is a real tribute to the success that B.O.A.C. has had in its operations over the last five years.
It is, therefore, all the more regrettable that we should have in Clause 40 an example of Government dogmatism on the hiving-off of profitable activities of nationalised activities. As I read the Clause, virtually any of the functions and operations of the two Corporations could be sold off to private enterprise at the Secretary of State's direction. We shall vigorously oppose this in Committee.
Clause 40(3) goes so far as to say in effect that a direction may be given where it can be proved that it is against the national economic interest that the Board should be divested of some of its activities. But the most serious attack on the


future of the Board comes from the Government's proposals with regard to the second force independent airline. The Labour Government accepted, and my right hon. Friend's White Paper said, that there was a strong case for the establishment and building up of a second force, but it was made clear emphatically that that should not be done and that it would be grossly unfair for that to be done at the expense of taking away profit routes from the two nationalised Corporations.
This is precisely what the Government have now done, and this afternoon we had the announcement by the right hon. Gentleman of the routes which, in the initial stages, are to be taken away from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—the routes in the case of B.O.A.C. to West Africa and Tripoli, and some of the B.E.A. routes to Paris.
I was not clear, despite what the Minister said this afternoon, whether the revenue on these routes fell within the £6 million which the Government said was the limit that they would set themselves for this hiving-off operation. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us some clarification. Whether that comes within the limit of £6 million or not, the fact is that B.O.A.C. has said that the loss of profit—not the loss of revenue—on West Africa alone will amount to something like £½ million when these routes are taken away from 1st April, which is later this week. Incidentally, it is not clear to me what authority the Government have to allow that to happen from Thursday of this week, when the Order on which it is based has not been debated or agreed by the House. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give some information on that point.
The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon said that the principles on which the Government were acting in this matter were that what would be provided would be a better service to the public and a bigger share of the traffic concerned for British airlines. But the routes that we are talking about today do not meet either of these criteria. There is no suggestion that the granting to Caledonian-B.U.A. of the routes that I have mentioned will provide a better service to the public. If there is, perhaps the Minister will tell us how that will happen. Certainly there is no suggestion, nor can

there be, that the divesting of these routes by the Corporations will enable a bigger share of the traffic to the areas concerned to fall to British airlines.
This would be serious enough. But what is even more serious is the Minister's inability this afternoon to explain clearly what was meant by the provisions in Clause 3 for the giving of guidance and guide-lines to the Civil Aviation Authority. The Government said originally that the transfer of routes from the nationalised Corporations to the independent force would be a once-for-all operation, and that once that had been done the second force would have to take its chance, as it were, with the new Civil Aviation Authority. But that is not what the Bill says.
That is not what Clause 3 says. Clause 3(1)(b) does not say that the chosen second British airline will have preference over other independent airlines. So far as I can see, it says that the second British airline will have preference over every one—over other independents and also over the two nationalised Corporations. If that is what the Clause means and what the Government intend, what is announced would only be the start of a general preference for the independent airline which presumably could be based on only one real principle and practice, and that is that, whatever happened, the new second independent airline would be given sufficient routes in order to ensure that it always made a substantial profit. The nationalised Corporations would have to make the best that they could of what was left for them.
If that is not what is intended by Clause 3, the Minister must give us a better explanation. As it stands, it is completely unacceptable to the Opposition, and this is one of the parts of the Bill which we shall do our best to amend in Committee.
As regards general guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority, we had a series of generalisations from the Minister. I do not know whether he thought that they meant something, but they certainly did not mean anything to my hon. Friends or myself. What does seem clear—it was interesting that hon. Members opposite took up this point as well—is that the C.A.A., as the Bill is drafted, is subordinated to the Minister. Whether one


takes the question of air transport licensing or anything else, essentially, the Minister is in charge, and by that token the Civil Aviation Authority is weakened. Again, this is a matter on which we shall seek to make substantial Amendments, and I hope that the speeches we have had from hon. Members opposite today will be translated into support for proposals which we shall make to that end in Committee.
It is a pity, also, that so little information has been given to us about the Civil Aviation Authority, the kind of people who will be appointed, whether they will be full-time or part-time members, and exactly how they are to operate. We shall want clarification on these important matters also before the Bill is given a Second Reading today.
A good many hon. Members and important interests outside are disturbed at the lack of precise information about the Civil Aviation Authority. All of us have had representations from, for example, the Air Registration Board. If the Government are to persuade the A.R.B. that the new Airworthiness Requirements Board will meet the kind of points which it has put to us, we must know a good deal more about the sort of role which the Government envisage for the C.A.A. under the Bill. If we could have such reassurance tonight, it might help outside bodies such as, for instance, the Air Registration Board. Whether it will reassure some of my hon. Friends, like my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar, I am not sure, but that is really a matter for him rather than for me.
I agreed with virtually everything said today by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar except his decision that in any circumstances he would vote against the Bill. It seemed to me—I gather that one or two others of my hon. Friends took the same view—that what my hon. Friend was really doing was fighting again over the arguments which we had the Civil Aviation (Declaratory Provisions) Act earlier this year. We on this side made our views on that Act very clear, and we shall make them clear again when the individual Orders transferring routes from B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. come before the House. We have one Order already in respect of the West

African routes, and we shall, presumably, have others within the next two days. We shall make clear then that we are absolutely opposed to the way in which the Government are taking routes from the nationalised airlines to build up the second, independent airline.
There are many other aspects of the Bill on which we shall wish to have more information, either tonight or in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar mentioned, for instance, the whole question of consultation with employees, and I agree with him that the Bill is grossly deficient in that respect. For my part, I am interested to know what the Government intend to do about the question of subsidies for domestic routes which, in the nature of things, must be run by the new Board or by the B.E.A. at a considerable loss. This was dealt with in the Labour Government's White Paper. We have heard nothing from the Government today, and I understand that there have been no discussions with B.E.A. about this important matter. I should like to have an assurance, before we leave the Bill at this stage, that the Government treat this matter with some seriousness and urgency, for it is of great significance, particularly for some of the Scottish domestic services. But these are matters which we can explore at much greater length in Committee.
This is a mixed Bill. Some bits very much follow the Labour Government's White Paper, and I find no difficulty in accepting them, but there are some bits that we shall want substantially amended. Since the Bill in so many essential respects follows the Labour Government's White Paper, we should not vote against it, but should try to amend substantially in Committee the various points that worry us, which I have tried to indicate tonight, some of which worry Conservative hon. Members as well.
We are dealing with an industry that is important economically and in other ways. It is an expanding industry, and an industry, as represented by the Corporations, which has a very fine record. The aim of the Opposition will be to make the Bill when it leaves Committee a real contribution to the success of this very important industry.

9.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): This has been an extremely interesting and useful debate. The speeches from both sides have contributed much to our knowledge and understanding of the subject. Many of the points raised were essentially Committee points. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that we shall welcome all the advice we can get from the Committee on what is a very complicated matter.
I welcome the somewhat limited praise for the Bill from the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). Their approach was sensible in the circumstances. I hope that by the time I have finished speaking that happy accord will be universally felt among hon. Members opposite.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the route transfers. They are subject to the negative resolution procedure, and therefore take place on the date in the Order to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, namely, 1st April. He also asked whether this was to be a once-for-all transfer. As I thought my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade made clear, it is, so far as the initial operation is concerned. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] My right hon. Friend has made that perfectly clear time and again, but he has also made it quite clear that it would be absurd to fetter the C.A.A., or to freeze the pattern of routes for all time.

Mr. Mikardo: Am I right in thinking that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that the rape will be a once-for-all rape, and that after that all that happens is continuous seduction?

Mr. Grant: To use the words sometimes employed, I do not use filthy language like that. The truth of the matter is that the present operation has been clearly stated as being necessary to get the second force viable and off the ground. The routes my right hon. Friend announced this afternoon are the end of that operation.

Mr. Mikardo: Change the subject quickly.

Mr. Grant: I trust that the hon. Member for Poplar will do me the courtesy of allowing me to complete my remarks.
It would be ridiculous to freeze the pattern of routes for all time. If that is what the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is suggesting, he is taking a surprising view considering that the industry is dynamic and changing all the time.
A number of hon. Members asked whether the proposed route transfers were within the forecast of the statement made by my right hon. Friend in August. The answer is clearly that they are. They are within the figures expressed by my right hon. Friend. They are within the approximately £6 million or 2 per cent. to 3½ per cent. of current annual revenue. We are satisfied that this is a modest removal of routes from the Corporations to get the second force working.
I agree that the West African routes have been profitable in B.O.A.C.'s hands. However, the Tripoli and Paris routes have been of quite a different order. Taking the package as a whole, I am satisfied that this will not make too great an impact on the Corporations, while yielding to Caledonian-B.U.A. the revenue outlined in the statement made by my right hon. Friend in August.

Mr. Russell Kerr: What about the Portuguese routes which are, we understand, also being transferred?

Mr. Grant: My right hon. Friend made no reference to Portuguese routes in his speech. I do not propose to deal with that issue because I am answering the questions that were asked in this debate.
A number of hon. Members referred to the double designation referred to in paragraph 33 of the Labour Party's White Paper and I was asked whether that was still applicable. The answer is "Yes". It will be part of the three criteria which we expect will be given to the C.A.A. as guidance and when hon. Members who are interested in this subject read the OFFICIAL REPORT they will discover that my right hon. Friend outlined this point.
Hon. Members on both sides queried whether there was too much Ministerial interference with the affairs of the C.A.A. and possibly with those of the Airways Board. The contrary view was also expressed by a number of hon. Members, some of whom suggested that perhaps there was not sufficient control over the Board.
The position is relatively simple. As for the suggestion that excessive powers are given to the Secretary of State over the Board, the powers given to my right hon. Friend in relation to the public sector airlines group are, in the main, confined to those which are necessary to fulfil the standard responsibilities of Ministers in relation to nationalised industries. The aim has been to leave the commercial initiative with the Airways Board, and not with Ministers, though it is, of course, for Ministers to exercise general oversight and to account to Parliament for the group's performance.
The provisions relating to group organisation are new to civil aviation legislation, though there are similar provisions in the statutes applying to certain other nationalised industries. Essentially, the Secretary of State retains final responsibility for major changes in the organisation of the public sector group as a whole and must account to Parliament for it.
The power of direction to dispose of financial interests in other undertakings, or discontinue or restrict subsidiary activities, has parallels in other nationalised industry Statutes, and I stress that this power is heavily qualified. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied that the exercise of the power is consistent with the performance of the Airways Board's general duty; consultation with the Airways Board is required; and it is subject to the negative Resolution procedure. It is wholly reasonable that such a power should be available to the Secretary of State if occasion should require it. [Interruption.] I assume that hon. Members opposite want replies to their questions. Whether they like the replies is not relevant; they are going to get them.
I now deal with the suggestion that excessive power is given to the Airways Board, the reverse of the coin. The powers of the Airways Board in relation to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are broadly equivalent to those in the private sector of a holding company and are not excessive in relation to the rôle which the Board has to fulfil. It will be for the Board to decide the way in which it uses these powers, and we have every confidence that it will want to draw fully on the expertise and experience of the staff and management of the Corporations. I

must stress that no substantial change in group organisation may take place without the consent of the Secretary of State, as I have described on the contrary argument.
It is easy to gain the impression from looking through the Bill that the Secretary of State will be intervening at every turn, but I ask the House not to be misled by this. [Interruption.] I must say as an aside that it is remarkably gratifying to find the hon. Member for Poplar and the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) for once not wanting to interfere too much with British industry; they have spent the whole of their lives doing so; however, there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth!
The powers are largely reserve powers and the power to issue general directions—

Mr. Mikardo: I do not mind the hon. Gentleman making a few cracks, but both my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) and I have been members of the Select Committee of Nationalised Industries, which has spent most of its time trying to reduce the power of direction of Ministers over public corporations. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make silly cracks, he ought to get his facts right first.

Mr. Grant: I am delighted to hear that. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is not slow to take advantage of an opportunity to make a silly crack. I welcome any way in which he tries to create more freedom for industry.
As he pointed out, general directions are rarely used in practice. The power in Clause 4(4) to give particular directions is necessary because it relates to the functions which remain with the Government, but here again we believe that the Board should rarely need to use this power, because the Department and the Authority will work closely together. The Authority, as an expert professional body, separate from the Government, may be expected to develop close consultative arrangements with the industry which it will be regulating. No less important will be the consultations which it will need to have with the Government on such international matters as air fares and relations with other countries. I believe that it will work in close harness


with the Department and that this will be a satisfactory solution.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley drew attention to the difficulties that the A.T.L.B. had in publishing financial information. Clause 35, on publication of information, requires the consent of the Secretary of State, but my right hon. Friend indicated that when faced with this situation he will favour the maximum possible disclosure.
The right hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members mentioned the very important subject of industrial relations. I know that this interests the hon. Member for Poplar and his hon. Friend. It interested the Edwards Committee, too. I hesitate to say this in view of the arrival of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but some of Edwards has been overtaken by the introduction into this House of the Industrial Relations Bill. I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the Civil Aviation Authority has consultative machinery as described in Schedule 1, paragraph 14.

Mr. Mikardo: It is rubbish.

Mr. Grant: As to Caledonian-B.U.A. it will be negotiating terms and conditions of employment comparable to those offered by the air corporations on similar work. To this extent the creation of the new airline will be beneficial to those who work in it, offering better prospects and greater security. Caledonian-B.U.A. is now in full membership of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport and thus is a party to the same negotiating procedures as the air corporations. This brings employees of British airlines within the N.J.C. machinery and the Government see no justification for introducing statutory obligations bearing in mind the variations in role and scale of operations of different airlines.
Moreover employers who cannot afford proper standards for their staff, taking into account the scale and type of their operation are clearly unlikely to be the sort of employers who will succeed in persuading the C.A.A. that they have satisfied the requirement for entitlement to operate.
The hon. Member for Poplar referred to the fact that independent airlines have consistently underpaid their staff. He went back into history, and I can go back

to the 1950s when I recall when I had something to do with this. I remember well what the situation was. Some of the independents in those days paid less than the Corporations and they did so because it was consistently found by the industrial court which heard cases on both sides that the work they were engaged in was not comparable. The situation is different now and it will be found that the terms and conditions of Caledonian-B.U.A. staff will be broadly comparable with the staff of the corporations. I do not believe that anxieties on the grounds of terms and conditions of those engaged in the industry are well-founded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking, in an interesting and remarkably well-informed speech, drew attention to the drafting of the Bill. In particular he recited to some effect Clause 4(4). We will look at this wording in Committee but I would utter this warning. I have always had a lot of fun, particularly when in opposition, and particularly with Finance Bills of hon. Members opposite, in reading out some of the extraordinary jargon that has emerged. This is always amusing but I would add the caution that sometimes to try to shorten the wording of a Bill into what seems simple language is, in the long run, God's gift to the lawyers. We will look at this in Committee.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Before we leave the interesting subject of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), may we know from the Minister whether the Government endorse the hon. Member's opinion that this Clause leaves open the question whether B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. can be denationalised?

Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend is not quoting that Clause. It was Clause 40 which has been referred to by other hon. Members. Dealing with that point he will discover that Clause 40 refers only to the question of subsidiaries and does not deal with the point raised by the hon. Member. If he wishes we can pursue that in Committee.
My hon. Friend asked why operating safety was not referred to. If he looks at Clause 2(c) he will see that reference is made to:
such functions as are for the time being conferred on it by or under Air Navigation Orders…
This question will arise in that context.
The other matter referred to by my hon. Friend and by others on this side of the House was airport development generally. The Civil Aviation Authority will have the task of advising the Government and others on the development of aerodromes to match air services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) referred to the question of the consumer, as did the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who dealt with air tour operators. I share many of the anxieties expressed by hon. Members about the undesirability of some inclusive tour activities, but there is power in Clause 26 to provide for regulations to be made for the licensing by the Authority of air travel organisers subject to the negative resolution procedure. I am sure that that will have a salutary effect on undesirable operators. The Authority will have power to licence for definite periods if it wishes, but it is not for us to dictate to it.
On the question of private flying, it is very easy, when debating the objectives and policies to be pursued in regulating civil aviation, to think only in terms of commercial aviation. There is, however, a strong, important and thriving general aviation sector, which includes recreational and training flying done by flying and gliding clubs, flying done by owner pilots for recreational and business purposes, and flying done by business organisations other than air transport operators which own and operate their own aircraft. The development and regulation of this sector will be the Authority's responsibility.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Speed it up.

Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman has not been paying a notable amount of attention recently. I can only conclude that he has not decided whether to vote on this issue.
I refer to the question of aircraft noise. It is because the Government have a duty to maintain a balance between the interests of the industry and the amenity of the public that the main responsibility for noise abatement cannot he given to the Authority but must remain with the Government. The Bill provides for my Department to be able to issue specific directions to the Authority on matters concerning noise vibration, pollution or other disturbance

attributable to civil aircraft. The Authority will, however, be the principal source of advice to the Department on safety, technical and operational aspects of proposed noise abatement measures on which close consultation will be essential.
In particular, the noise testing of aircraft will be delegated to the Authority, which will also act as adviser on all matters affecting noise certification. The Government have no powers at present to impose noise abatement measures at municipally or privately-owned aerodromes. I recognise the considerable interest that there is in this aspect which is under review. However, the separation of responsibility for noise from the other responsibilities of ownership raises a number of very difficult legal and financial problems with which it would not be appropriate to deal in this Bill. Nevertheless, I assure all Members who have referred to the problem of noise that we are very conscious of the difficulties which it imposes.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman has said, as his colleague said, that this responsibility is the Government's. I note that in the Bill there is reference to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry but that its principal supporter is the Secretary of State for the Environment. Does this mean that "Secretary of State for the Environment" can be read into the Bill where the words "Secretary of State" appear?

Mr. Grant: No, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman had had enough experience of Bills to know that that could not be done.
One of my hon. Friends raised the question of the Air Registration Board. The Government accept that the Air Registration Board has worked well and enjoys a first-class international reputation, and we have fully taken account of those factors in coming to our decision. The Air Registration Board was, however, formed in 1937, when civil aviation was vastly different from what it is today, and, although some minor adjustments of functions between the Department responsible and the A.R.B. have taken place from time to time, the increasing complexity of aviation means that it is no longer possible to look at individual safety factors in isolation. The


airworthiness and operational regulation of the aircraft, the competence of the crew and the standards of aerodrome and navigational services are all part of one interlocking environment. Alternative formulae have been considered, including some suggested by the A.R.B. itself, but the Government have concluded that, if there is to be a unified body, then executive control of airworthiness must rest with the Authority.
We recognise the value of the A.R.B. having been separate from the Government and the importance of the consultative arrangements it has had with the industry.
The Authority will, of course, be separate from the Government and be able to maintain the A.R.B.'s consultative machinery. The Government have furthermore recognised the value of having a forum in which different sides of the industry can contribute to the development of airworthiness standards. The Bill provides, therefore, for the creation of an Airworthiness Requirements Board with much the same composition as the Council of the Air Registration Board which the Authority will be obliged to consult on airworthiness standards.
One thing which I want to make clear to hon. Members is that there is absolutely nothing in this Bill which takes away from the tremendous importance of safety. Further, the Bill makes it clear that safety in the air is the dominating factor, and will continue to be. I must say that I thought it was less than fair of some hon. Members opposite to endeavour to besmirch the independent

airlines in saying that somehow they were less able to provide safety. I think it would be helpful to remind hon. Members of the words of the Edwards Report:
We therefore find it difficult to draw any clear-cut conclusions from the available accident statistics.…The most we feel able to say is that the evidence, so far as it goes, indicates that the larger airlines tend to be safer…and that there are fewer accidents on scheduled than on unscheduled flights.
I am quite certain that in future safety will be the dominant factor in all sectors of the aviation industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) was quite right to take hon. Members opposite to task for the allegations which they had made.

Mr. Mikardo: Read page 207.

Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend's fears, however, that people will be deterred perhaps from using independent airlines are unnecessary because I just do not believe that people proposing to go abroad will hesitate about using them and will think they will have to read first the speech which the hon. Member for Poplar has made.
In conclusion, we entirely support the views expressed in favour of the Bill by the official Opposition. I support the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) who paid a handsome tribute to Adam Thomson. I wish every success to the Bill, and I hope the House will support it with acclaim.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 30.

Division No. 336.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cockeram, Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Coombs, Derek
Goodhart, Philip


Astor, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gorst, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Cormack, Patricia
Gower, Raymond


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Curran, Carles
Green, Alan


Benyon, W.
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Biffen, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.
Grylls, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dean, Paul
Gummer, Selwyn


Boscawen, Robert
Dixon, Piers
Gurden, Harold


Bowden, Andrew
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Bray, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Eyre, Reginald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Burden, F. A.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fidler, Michael
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Carlisle, Mark
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hastings, Stephen


Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Havers, Michael


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fortescue, Tim
Hay, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Ruchcliffe)
Fowler, Norman
Heseltine, Michael


Clegg, Walter
Gibson-Watt, David
Hicks, Robert




Hiley, Joseph
Mitchell,Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Soref, Harold


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Speed, Keith


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Moate, Roger
Spence, John


Holland, Philip
Money, Ernle D.
Sproat, Iain


Holt, Miss Mary
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hornby, Richard
Monro, Hector
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Relgate)
More, Jasper
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Charts (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Mudd, David
Sutcliffe, John


Hunt, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Iremonger, T. L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Normanton, Tom
Temple, John M.


James, David
Onslow, Cranley
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Jessel, Toby
Owen, Idris (Stockport)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Tilney, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pink, R. Bonner
Trew, Peter


Kinsey, J. R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kirk, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kitson, Timothy
Raison, Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Knox, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walder, David (Ctitheroe)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Ward, Dame Irene


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langston)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Loveridge, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Weatherill, Bernard


MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
White, Roger (Gravesend)


McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wilkinson, John


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Marten, Neil
Russell, Sir Ronald
Worsley, Marcus


Mather, Carol
Sharples, Richard
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Maude, Angus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)



Mawby, Ray
Shelton, William (Clapham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)






NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Ashton, Joe
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Atkinson, Norman
Hunter, Adam
Sillars, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Spearing, Nigel


Booth, Albert
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Stallard, A. W.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Lomas, Kenneth
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mendelson, John



Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mikardo, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Driberg, Tom
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Russell Kerr and


Evans, Fred
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Leslie Huckfield.


Hardy, Peter

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

CIVIL AVIATION [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a public authority concerned with civil aviation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') and to establish a corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') with functions which include the function of controlling the activities of British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways, it is expedient to authorize—


(1) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of sums required for making loans to the Authority and the Board;
(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for fulfilling a guarantee given by the Treasury in respect of sums borrowed by the Authority or the Board or stock issued or debts incurred by the Board;
(3) the making out of moneys provided by Parliament of payments to the Authority and the Board, of payments to local authorities in respect of expenses incurred by them in performing duties under provisions of that Act relating to health control and of refunds of fees paid in respect of applications for air service licences which abate, or as regards which appeals abate, by virtue of that Act;
(4) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by a government department by virtue of that Act and o any increase


attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other Act.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

WAYS AND MEANS

CIVIL AVIATION

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a public authority

concerned with civil aviation, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the making of charges in respect of the performance by the said authority of any of its functions;
(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund of any sums falling to be paid into that Fund in pursuance of that Act.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

RATING AND VALUATION (MINES AND QUARRIES)

10.10 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move,
That the Mines and Quarries (Valuation) Order 1971, dated 4th March, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
As the House will be aware, the rateable value of property is based upon the rent at which it may be expected to let. In pursuance of that principle, mines and quarries have been assessed to rates on the basis of the royalty paid or the royalty which could be expected to be payable for the extraction of the minerals from that mine or quarry.
When it is considered that royalty for extraction of minerals is a payment for removing part of the land itself, not just using it, it is fairly evident that at least a part of that payment is a capital payment for the material extracted rather than a rental payment for the land itself. The Finance Act, 1970, recognised that factor in relation to income tax, surtax and corporation tax, and provided that for tax purposes such a royalty should be treated as 50 per cent. capital payment and 50 per cent. rent. The Government of the time announced that they would deal with rating on the same basis. On taking office we looked again at the matter and decided that the previous Administration were right.
The purpose of this Order is to reduce the rates payable in respect of a mine or quarry, but not in respect of mine buildings or mining equipment, in the first year to three-quarters of the amount otherwise payable and in the subsequent years to one half of the amount otherwise payable. I mean by "otherwise payable" upon an assessment based on the full royalty as the rent. Because the impact may be quite material in some cases on the local authorities, we have in the Order phased this change over a period of two years in order to cushion the impact.
In the first year the derating will be 25 per cent., and in subsequent years 50 per cent. Perhaps I could explain what the impact could be. I take figures for the present year 1970–71 since we do not

yet know the figures of rates to be collected for 1971–72. Let us assume that this Order had been in operation for the year 1970–71. The figures, as best as we can estimate them, are as follows. The total mineral rateable value is £22·4 million, including coal; excluding coal, the figure would be £13 million. The average non-domestic rate in the £ for the year 1970–71 would be 14s. 5d. The total rates payable, therefore, including coal would have been £16·2 million; excluding coal, £9·4 million. We are dealing with the first year of derating, in which the figure is 25 per cent. The loss of rates if the Order had been in force during this year would have been £4 million including coal mining, and £2·4 million excluding it.
There would have been 171 local authorities who would have lost 5 per cent. or more of their total rateable value. Of those, 163 would have been compensated for that loss by the resources element of the rate support grant. In the case of seven of the remaining eight the 25 per cent. would have meant an increase in rates of 1 p in the £. That gives an idea of what we are talking about in terms of the payment of rates as a result of the Order. Of the fewer than 200 local authorities affected by the Order a large proportion would receive compensation in the resources element of the rate support grant, and a mere handful would suffer to the extent of about 1p in the £. In the case of only one authority might the loss have been as much as 3p in the £.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Will the Minister say whether an estimate has been made of the amount of rate that would have been collected on spoilheaps? None of this has been collected, as the matter has been in dispute.

Mr. Page: I do not have the figures broken down in respect of different kinds of mineral extraction, but speaking offhand I should have thought that the amount in respect of spoilheaps would be a small part of the total.

Mr. Dick Leonard: The Minister is teasing the House by saying that only one authority will lose as much as 3p. Will he say which authority that is?

Mr. Page: It is Ashby Woulds Urban District Council.
In the case of the 163 local authorities which will be compensated by the resources element I must say at once that the allocation of that element for 1971–72 has not yet taken this into account, but I can give the House an assurance that it is proposed to make a recalculation of the 1971–72 grant later this year to take account of that fact the Order provides for certain exceptional cases.
Article 5 deals with coal mining and the National Coal Board. The Board is assessed on a formula set out in the National Coal Board (Valuation) Order, 1963. By Article 5 of the present Order that formula is brought up to date and scaled down to the 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. figures respectively for the first and subsequent years.
Article 6 of the present Order deals with opencast minnig. There it is a matter of scaling down the tonnage factor in the formula. Article 7 deals with the fascinating case of the rate of tin, lead or copper mines. I am told that this originated as long ago as the Rating Act, 1874, and that before that date tin, lead and copper mines were free from rate. The intention in 1874 was that they should be rated, but there was an outcry from the South-West about the precarious state of the industry, and certain concessions were granted. For example, the rating was not on hypothetical royalties but on actual royalties. They have an initial holiday from rates when they are newly opened, but they have to go on paying after they have closed. Their plant and buildings are not rated.
These are the several advantages which mines of this kind receive. They are traditional and rather historical advantages, and although we have not in this present Order altered them, apart from adjusting them in order to bring them into the scale down to the 25 per cent. for the first year and 50 per cent. for subsequent years, I give warning that it may be necessary before long to review the special provisions and see whether the tin mines can be put on the same footing as other mineral workings. It is not appropriate to do that in the Order, so it preserves the special arrangements for the tin, lead and copper mines,

subject only to the modifications needed to bring them into line with the 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. reductions.
The Order does not specifically deal with the shale heaps mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier). Shale heaps from which material is being extracted will benefit from the reductions in the same way as any other mineral working. In rating terms, there are two kinds of shale heaps or spoil heaps. The kind of heap which has not become so much a part of the land by landscaping or settling that it is still a heap of chattels is still rateable. That information may shock rating purists. Even if the shale is treated as a chattel it is still rated. That has a court decision to support it.
On the other hand, some shale heaps have so settled or been so landscaped into the land that they are part of the land, and are rated as such—

Dame Irene Ward: Before my hon. Friend leaves this subject, I am sure that he will know that some of us have been carrying on quite a battle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get a reduction in the charges, etc. I therefore hope that by the advice it tenders, the Department for the Environment will urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer along in that direction so that we may look forward to getting something tomorrow.

Mr. Page: I do not know anything about the battles that my hon. Friend has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I know that hon. Members of all parties in the North-East have had a fierce battle with my own Department on the subject. We have tried to meet the legitimate aspirations of those who are as anxious as we are to clear the shale heaps and to landscape them properly—if we cannot reduce them to completely level sites yet to do the best we can to fit them in with the countryside.
To some extent this attempt has been helped recently by the acceptance of shale as a proper fill for road work. Only a small part can be used at present and the transport costs are heavy, so that it is not economical to use shale from a pit at any very great distance from motorway construction. Nevertheless, shale is being


used for that purpose. We appreciate that the rating of the shale heaps adds a small sum to the cost of shale used for motorway purposes or construction of embankments or foundations. It is not a large amount. I have calculated that the increase in the cost is about 1p to 30p to 35p on the sale of the material from the heaps. This derating up to 25 per cent. in the first year and 50 per cent. in subsequent years will help to reduce that cost.

Mr. Bagier: Is not even the reduced cost of shale from the royalty point of view still considerably higher than the cost of dolomite and the equivalent competitors?

Mr. Page: It depends to a great extent on the distance that it has to be transported. Transport is a substantial element in the cost of any road foundations. Although we cannot go all the way with those who have advocated the complete freedom of the shale head from rating, the Order will be of some assistance by recognising that shale heaps which are being worked for this purpose come within the definition of mines and quarries—they are mineral workings—and will get the benefit of the Order.
From time to time I am pressed by right hon. and hon. Members from the North-East particularly, although not only from the North-East, to go the whole distance and relieve shale heaps altogether of rating. This has been a doubtful point in law for a considerable time. When the valuation officers started to rate the shale heaps at the time when the extraction of shale became something of a big business, there was a question whether they were right in doing so. From 1963 to 1968 when the dispute was going on between the shale heap owners or the undertakers of the mineral workings and the authorities the rates were not paid.
It was quite definite after the court decision in 1968 that the owners were responsible in law for the rates. It is unfortunate that now they will be called upon to pay the arrears of rates for that period since 1963 or even earlier, perhaps since 1961, but I regret that as the law stands I cannot do anything about that at present. The collection of the rate must date back to the time when the proposal was made. However, I hope that the Order will be of some assistance

to the owners of the heaps in encouraging the clearance of them and the use of the material in road work.
I think that I have dealt with the main points of the Order. I am sure that the House would not wish me to go through the formulae in any great detail. This is a reform in the rating system which was to be undertaken by the previous Government and which we think is right. Although we intend to review the whole of local government finance at a comparatively early date by putting before the House a Green Paper for discussion with options as local government finance in future, we think that this amendment should be made now without waiting for that general review, because it was promised by the previous Government and seems a fair way of working out the rates as between the local authority and the mine and quarry workers.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Having listened to the Minister outlining his difficulties, one appreciates that this argument has been going on for some time—with his predecessor, with the junior Ministers of the Department as well as with the senior Ministers, and now with himself.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that these shale heaps were part of the landscape and that they could not be noticed, but I hope he will take an early opportunity to look at the 260 major pit heaps in the North-East. They are eyesores and they contain 200 million tons of this stinking black rubbish which has been there for many years.
It is remarkable that a change in the law such as is envisaged tonight should not even mention spoil heaps unless they are the result of mining or quarrying or some such activity designated by law. I appreciate the righ hon. Gentleman's difficulty when he says that he cannot interfere with the law, but we are the law makers, and we want to see these heaps shifted.
The fact is that although northeastern contractors—I do not know the position in other parts of the country—have been shifting these abominable heaps and using the contents on such laudable objects as roadworks since 1961, the Minister's statement that the rates have got to be paid from 1961 will mean that out of about 47 contractors


in the North-East, 45 will go bankrupt because they had made no provision for this rate demand. It was not included in their estimates.
The Department may say that they ought to have done so, but may I draw attention to the fact that shale has been used in the North-East and elsewhere for many years. Before the war the great Team Valley Trading Estate was built on shale. The coast road from Newcastle to Tynemouth was built on shale. At that time there was no question of anyone receiving a rating demand. In 1961 onwards, when a need emerged for using some of these heaps it was natural that contractors would enter into contracts without taking into consideration any question of a rate demand.
It was not until 1963 or 1965 that a valuation order was first served on some of these contractors. On receiving it they appealed at local tribunal level, and the local tribunals were much more sensible than we seem to be at national level. They found in the contractors' favour. Then the Smiles case was heard by the Lands Tribunal which found against the contractor, and that led to the present legislation.
We should ask ourselves whether the sensible thing is to have these pit heaps shifted. It may be, as the Minister has said, that these pit heaps have become part of the landscape, or have taken root, or whatever rating valuation officer terminology is used, but the fact is that successive Governments have been prepared to pay 85 per cent. of the cost, in the form of grant, of shifting these pit heaps provided the local authorities were prepared to pay the other 15 per cent.
Good use has been made of these black, stinking, smoking things particularly since 1967 or 1968 by the Road Research Laboratory as infilling for roads and motorways. Anybody who was prepared to use them saved the taxpayer and ratepayer some money, and this was a good thing. It has saved money nationally and locally. But when the operation becomes commercially viable and contractors go to expense and utilise some expertise in making arrangements to have these heaps shifted and put into the motorways, all of a sudden these black, stinking heaps become a valuable mineral. This is absolute nonsense.
Unfortunately, the alternative to removing pit heaps and using them for roadways is to dig a great hole alongside the motorway, a borrow-pit. Anyone who travels up our motorways can see these great holes dug to take out the clay and make the infill for motorway construction. No rates are paid on that sort of thing because they are not in possession long enough for rates to be demanded on them. I shall be glad to be told I am wrong about that, but I think that I am not. There is evidence throughout the country of eyesores being left in the form of borrow-pits, great holes dug in the landscape to provide fill, yet for very little extra cost pit heaps could be used.
Perhaps it is sometimes cheaper to do it in that way. The contractors are supposed to reinstate the land in the proper manner, but they do not always do it. Far from putting an obstacle in the way of using pit heaps for roadworks, we should make it obligatory that they be used. About two years ago, I believe, a committee was set up under the Ministries of Transport and Housing and Local Government to examine this very matter. Unfortunately, in the North-East, where we are particularly blessed—if that is the right word—with these unsightly blots on the landscape, a huge road programme is gradually coming to an end. For the past 2½ years or so, while we have been arguing about it, we could have been using the pit heaps for infill.
I thank the Minister for his attempt to help the shale manufacturers, but, unfortunately, it seems that the majesty of our law works in a mysterious way. In order to reduce the rate liability on one section, we must reduce it for all, so everybody who deals with tin, lead, clay, gravel—anything one cares to name—comes in. I can understand the chagrin of hon. Members on both sides who do not want to see more dereliction on their land and who are annoyed that it is now made cheaper to dig holes, to dig for clay or dig for dolomite, because we want to help the contractors who have been shifting pit heaps.
I hope that the Minister will look at the matter again. He wrote me a letter today which told me something about some of the matters which I raised with him in an interview two or three weeks ago. Even now, after a couple of hours


to try to understand it, I can only say that, if he understands it, he must know Chinese better than I do. After just the first two paragraphs, I am right out of my depth, with all the phrases about planning permissions, chattels and the rest which he has set down at some length.
All I am interested in is getting the pit heaps removed. I am a bit disturbed about the way things went in the discussions leading up to this stage. I spent some time moving my own Government in the matter, and I finally got agreement from the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government that there would be a 50 per cent. reduction in the rating valuation for shale manufacturers under the formula which was to be presented. At that time, I did not appreciate that it would apply also to dolomite, gravel, lead and the rest. But there having been agreement by the present Minister to adopt that suggestion of 50 per cent., it is a bit late in the day, at the beginning of this year, suddenly to reduce it to 25 per cent. in the first year. The basic problem we are arguing is that of shale, although it has other connotations. No one can argue that local authorities will have a reduction in income in respect of that, because they have not had it. Shale manufacturers have been fighting the matter through the courts for the past two years. Therefore, there is no great urgency, particularly as regards shale, to have this one year's reneging on the undertaking given by the previous Minister.
I hope that when the Minister looks into the question he will try to sweep away the technical jargon of planning, chattels and so on. It must be difficult. But what we who are laymen, and not lawyers or valuation experts, want is to have the pit heaps of the North-East removed. If a rating problem is stopping this, or making it less economic to move them than to dig holes, it makes a nonsense of government if we cannot find a way to put the matter right.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Dick Leonard: The Minister did not speak to us in Chinese tonight, but it was clear from his speech that the Order covers a number of complex questions. It is certain that it will have varying effects in different parts

of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) has spoken as a representative of the North-East. As a London Member, I am especially concerned with the effects of the Order within the G.L.C. area, and particularly in my own local government area of the London Borough of Havering.
The principal—perhaps the sole—type of undertaking affected in the Greater London area is the gravel pit. That is certainly true of my own borough. The points I wish to raise have been argued to me with great force by officials and elected representatives of all political parties of my own borough. I believe that they also substantially represent the views of the London Boroughs Association, which has independently puts its points to the Minister.
The London Borough of Havering and the Association have three fundamental objections to the Order. The first is to the substance of the Order, which will have the effect of depriving London boroughs of useful sources of revenue. The other two are to the manner in which it is proposed that the new policy should be put into effect.
Let me begin by outlining the objections of the London boroughs to the policy contained in the Order, the policy of partial derating of gravel pits. The London boroughs concede that other forms of mineral hereditaments may be wasting assets, and that for them a measure of derating is justified. But in their view the gravel pits in the London area are not in a comparable position, as they have valuable alternative uses once the gravel is worked out.
I quote from a letter sent by the London Boroughs Association to the Ministry on 13th November, 1970:
In relation to gravel winning hereditaments in the London area the Association do not accept that the assets are of a wasting nature since the removal of the gravel creates tipping space which is valuable in its turn, and, in the process of profitable controlled tipping, the land can be made ready for further use or development. In effect, the gravel winning is part of a continuous process, and the Association feel that the sweeping compromise of a 50 per cent. reduction in rateable value is a completely unnecessary concession which will prejudice all the remaining ratepayers in the area.
The proposed measures will, if approved, have a markedly detrimental effect on the


finances of some of the London Boroughs. Any increase in rate poundage will, the Association feel sure, be deeply resented by the public, for whom gravel winning is in any event unpopular in the life of the community because of the adverse effect on amenity that it causes.
In short, the London boroughs take the view that there is no case for a partial derating of gravel pits in their area, and that the inevitable consequence would be a heavier burden on other ratepayers, and in particular upon the domestic ratepayer.
In my borough, for example, the town clerk estimates that the loss in revenue as a result of this Order will be £39,000 in 1971–72 and £82,500 in 1972–73. I am informed on good authority that my borough is not one of those which will be compensated by the resources element in the rate support grant. I imagine that it is one of the seven authorities which the Minister mentioned would be affected to the tune of a rate of 1p in the £.
Whatever may be the justification for this Order in, say, coal-mining areas, it does not seem that the Minister has made out a case in terms of the G.L.C. area, where the problems are very different. As the case has not been established, it will be hard to reconcile boroughs like mine to a substantial loss in revenue.
Over and above this objection to including gravel pits in this partial de-rating, the London boroughs object strongly to the manner in which this is being done. There is, first, what seems to them to be the unseemly haste of the exercise. It should, they feel, have been deferred until the 1973 valuation, which would have been an opportunity for authorities which will lose revenues through this Order to recoup their losses on other types of rateable property which will be revalued upwards in that valuation.
Above all, however, the London boroughs object to the use of a Statutory Instrument for the purpose of introducing this new policy departure. They assert that the use of a Statutory Instrument to this effect goes flatly against the assurances given by the former Minister, now Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when the legislation was introduced originally. Speaking about what was then Clause 3 of the Rating and Valuation Bill of 1961,

which was re-enacted as Section 35 of the General Rate Act, 1967—the authority under which this Instrument is introduced—he said:
Here let me emphasise, what I said repeatedly in Standing Committee, that this Clause is not designed either to increase or diminish the overall liability to rates. That overall liability will be left substantially unchanged. The only question is whether a valuation can better be done by a formula than on the basis of the profits method. That applies throughout.
Later in the same speech the Minister said:
I certainly reinforce what I said in Committee, first, that it is not intended that the application of an order under this Clause to any class of undertaking should be regarded as either a privilege or a punishment. I cannot guarantee that it would leave the rateable value of any individual hereditament unchanged, but the formula would not be acceptable to the Government if it made any substantial upward or downward change in the rateable value of a class of undertakings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1961; Vol. 640, c. 442–9.]
Having regard to these specific assurances, it is quite wrong for the present Minister to use a Statutory Instrument to make the express and substantial downward change in rateable values which is now proposed.
It cannot be questioned that, legally, this proposal is in order and falls within the authority given by Section 35. The Committee on Statutory Instruments has affirmed this to be so. However, morally there is surely an obligation, in view of the assurances given when the Act was passed, to introduce fresh primary legislation to give effect to this proposal, rather than to rely on a Statutory Instrument.
It seems that there must have been some doubts in the Ministry about the propriety of proceeding in this way, for in the Ministry's reply to the letter I quoted earlier from the London Boroughs Association, the Ministry said:
Use of section 35.
We are satisfied that it is within the powers of the section to make an order on the lines proposed. Given that the Government has decided to change the basic assessment of mineral hereditaments, it seems sensible to give effect to the decision by means of an order under section 35, since that power is available, rather than by fresh primary legislation.
It added:
But the general intention not to use section 35 so as to alter the total liability of an industry still stands.


In other words, "We are going to cheat just this once and we promise never to do it again."
Is this an acceptable way for the Government to behave? In the whole spectrum of public policy this is a small area and no great loss of face would be involved if the Government had second thoughts about it, even at this late hour, and I ask the Minister whether he will withdraw the Order and reconsider whether this is the right way in which to set about it.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I have no wish to trespass on the problems presented by the gravel pits of the Greater London area, although I was extremely impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard). I was nearly won over to his argument until I remembered that a gravel pit is a hole and in South Yorkshire and the North-East generally we are presented with problems which are much more visible than the gravel pits which are the problem in the Essex area. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend about the exclusion of gravel pits.
I view the Order with mixed feelings. In so far as it helps the mining industry, which of course is dominant in the economy of my constituency, I view it favourably. But so far as it reduces the capacity of our local authorities in South Yorkshire, I am anxious about it.
I accept the point made by the Minister when he suggested that the rate support grant would carry a greater part of the loss, but he went on to say that the whole subject of local government finance would shortly be under careful scrutiny and perhaps considerably changed. If it is changed, it seems at least likely that there will be changes in the system of rate support, and this will mean that local authorities in the coalfields may find themselves in a difficult situation in a year or two.
I am surprised that the Minister should have suggested that there were only 171 local authorities which would suffer to the tune of 5 per cent. or more. I can think of some local authorities in South Yorkshire where the income from rates paid in respect of National Coal Board hereditaments represents a very large share of the authority's income. If in

1972–73 or subsequently the rate support does not provide generously for any loss under the Order, those authorities may be placed at a considerable disadvantage.
I do not want to labour that any further, for the labyrinths of rating and valuation I prefer other hon. Members to follow. My especial interest in the Order is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier)—the colliery tip. I have a fair knowledge of colliery tips. I can see 10 or 11 from a window in my home. I admit that I have a splendid view, but it would be even more splendid if those tips were removed. One can encourage the Order in so far as it will encourage the removal of tips. Certainly the Labour Party in Yorkshire will be pleased with the Order so far as it goes, because we have been clamouring for a considerable time for a change in the rating of slag heaps, and I am sure that many of my colleagues in the Labour Party in Yorkshire will be delighted that the Government have followed the policy of the last Administration.

Mr. Bagier: The last Administration promised 50 per cent. which the present Government have cut to 25 per cent.

Mr. Hardy: I agree, and that is important. What will happen is that any person who considered the removal of a slag heap will probably now wait until he gets greater benefit than that offered in the Order, so that the Order may discourage prompt action on slag heap removal.
My hon. Friend mentioned using colliery waste for civil engineering infill projects. I am told by a colleague with a constituency near mine—I may not mention his name, because he has not given me permission—that a major roadworks was sited near a colliery slag heap which remained untouched while holes were dug and materials extracted a considerable distance away from the roadworks. The people who lived there said that it was anomalous. Some of them said that it was scandalous and I agree with them. It seems ludicrous for us to dig holes to fill holes elsewhere and to leave these ruinous and indecent heaps of colliery waste untouched.
I hope that the Minister will look again at this with a view to allowing a greater


reduction, preferably complete de-rating, because it is necessary at this stage in our civilisation for us to get rid of these unfortunate and ugly monuments to an industrial revolution which has taken place. Certainly the scars of it should be removed now. I therefore ask the Minister to look at this carefully.
I have one further suggestion. It may be that derating or partial derating of the colliery slag heap removal activities may not allow the removal to go ahead at an adequate pace. I therefore suggest that as civil engineering projects are approved the Minister ought at least to consider, if not imposing planning conditions, at least issuing the strongest possible advice to local authorities and the public contractors to persuade them to use colliery slag material rather than dig holes and thus create further dereliction for the future.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: As has been pointed out this Order is made in flat contradiction of an assurance given by a Conservative Government Minister when legislation was introduced. That in no way makes the Order illegal, because the legislation gave the Minister powers to make an Order in these terms. However, it does cast very grave doubts on the wisdom of any Member of this House accepting any assurance from Ministers which might imply a limitation of powers going beyond the wording of legislation.
The wording of the Section 35(1) of the General Rate Act, 1967, states that the Secretary of State may by Order:
make provision for determining the rateable value of hereditaments to which this section applies, or any class or description of such hereditaments specified in the Order, by such method as may be so specified.
There is no doubt that the subsection gives the Minister power to vary these rates enormously. He can increase them or reduce them and if the Minister who introduced the legislation had intended any limitation to apply he certainly should not have had the legislation written in terms as wide as this. Under Section 35(3) it is provided that the Order may make provision for determining rateable value by the application of different methods of valuation to different parts of the hereditament. This is of

great importance in the light of the considerations raised tonight.
Clearly the Minister has the power to distinguish between one part of an hereditament and another and to apply a different formula and in effect a different valuation. It would be possible to deal with shale or slag heaps in one way and gravel pits in another. Or, where there was one operation by one owner or contractor on land, an operation which was in part extractive and in part an operation dealing with a bank surface, it would be possible to apply different rateable values or different methods of calculating the rateable value to the different processes. Therefore, if the Minister utilised the full scope of the Order, it would have been much more appropriate, if he had in mind the problem of shale heaps or slag heaps, to discriminate in favour of extraction while putting a proper rateable value on more profitable operations of mineral hereditaments.
The provision under which the Order is made requires the Secretary of State to consult authorities and persons carrying on the undertakings concerned. I am sure that the Minister did that. He is most meticulous and therefore he must be aware of the feelings of those operating in these areas and of the local authorities concerned. He must know that they would take different attitudes and views, depending on the area in which they were operating, about whether pit heaps should be removed or the profitable operation of a shale pit. Presumably the views of the local authorities will depend on whether they receive a resources grant which will offset any loss of rateable value which occurs under the Order.
I question the Minister on his obligations under subsection (5) of Section 35 of the General Rate Act, 1971, which requires him, after consulting the local authorities and persons carrying on the undertakings concerned, to investigate
the effect of the operation of the order
and lay before Parliament a report of the investigations and their results. This may give Parliament an opportunity to examine this matter very much more closely. When will the investigations take place? When will the report be available? When will it be laid before Parliament so that we can debate it?


The report may be a means of obtaining some very valuable information on the question of how we should deal with the problem of pit heaps and slag banks.
Members who come from coal mining areas have rightly made the Minister well aware of the problems in their own areas. Therefore, I may be forgiven for raising a constituency point on this Order, namely, the problem of iron works slag banks. Some of my constituents, mainly those living in Schneider Road, Barrow-in-Furness, are prevented from seeing from their front windows a beautiful view of the estuary of the Duddon by an iron works slag bank. I cannot see how one distinguishes in principle in giving benefit through rateable value or any other scheme of administration between those who suffer from a coal pit heap hiding a view and those who suffer from an iron works slag bank, since if the iron works has any merit it is that it reduces the volume of waste compared with the pit. It is therefore necessary to look at the problem of the waste heap on a wider basis than can be done by dealing solely with it on the basis of mineral hereditaments.
We must expand the idea of the dereliction grant. This must be used, as it can be, much more sensitively and directly to deal with the problems of the slag bank and enable local authorities who are keen and willing to do so to go ahead with the solution of the problems in areas blighted by industrial mining works in a way which cannot be done by altering our rating system by an Order like this.
As I have said so much that is critical of the way in which the Government are dealing with this matter, I end by quoting one of the few statements by Conservative Ministers with which I concur and which I applaud, namely, that made by the Secretary of State for the Environment in the Contract Journal of 31st December, 1970. He said:
Perhaps I might begin by attempting to define what I mean by a good environment. First, it is one free from pollution, free from intolerable noise, free from blighted and scarred landscapes, free from depressing streets and unfit houses.
I hope that next time we consider an Order dealing with mineral hereditaments it will he one which gives far greater priority to removing from our country blighted and scarred landscapes.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: It is impossible not to feel some degree of sympathy with the Minister, because what he is trying to do is to please everybody and, unfortunately, it would appear that he has pleased very few. It reminds me of the basis on which tea was served on the lower deck when I first joined the Navy, that as half the lower deck liked sugar in their tea and half did not like sugar in their tea, a half quantity of sugar was served with every cup of tea.
What we have here is the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) who says, "Thank you very much for your partial derating of gravel workings, but we do not like this at all." On the other hand we have the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), and, if I take her intervention correctly, of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who feel that a great deal more should have been done about the spoil heaps of their regions.
There is a great deal of sense in both points of view. Gravel, as it happens. is a very profitable form of occupation, and it does seem a little strange, therefore, that it should be assisted at the expense of the domestic ratepayer who will have to pay more in any event because of the Government's rate support grant policy and who will now find himself paying even more to assist something which, as I have said, is profitable. On the other hand we have the question of the spoil heaps. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South dealt with this very fully. If I read the Order correctly it seems to me that we have a very curious anomaly here, namely, that there is an element of derating where a mine is being worked but, if I read this correctly, the moment the mine ceases to be worked then no question of derating applies to the removal of the spoil heap.
I think the Minister might perhaps give us his views on this, but that is the way I read it. If this is so, then no encouragement whatever is given to people to use the spoil heaps in other ways—for example, for infilling of roads, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland. South pointed out, a useful way of diminishing an appalling eyesore. I


believe I am right in saying that there are no fewer than 268 major spoil heaps in the North-East, blights on the landscape of every citizen of this country, for the fact that they occur in major form in that part of the country is as much the concern of someone living in the South as it is of someone living in the North-East: it is our joint heritage.
It seems to me very peculiar, because what we were given to understand was that various Departments which have come together under the Secretary of State for the Environment were brought together so that there could be an overall authority which would see that the environment itself, in all its forms and manifestations, would be protected and made better. Certainly we have found today that rating still retains its old power, that it does not seem to have very much to do with the environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness quoted a very splendid statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I totally agree with it, but it would be rather pleasant to see it brought into effect, and brought into effect by the best possible means. It seems to me that while the hand is the hand of Esau, the voice appears to be the voice of Esau, too, and I have a feeling that that is going against biblical precedent.
What ought to be done? It seems to me that the problem in the North-East needs to be tackled urgently. It might be argued that the previous Administration did not do as much as they should have done. Well, we are all learning a great deal about it and there is a growing feeling in the country that the environment is of vital importance to our lives and the lives of our children, and it does not do any good to say that the previous Administration might have done more. This is a chance for the present Administration, and I am sorry to see whoever it may be losing the chance to do something.
How it is done is another matter. It may be that the rating method is the wrong method of doing it. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness hinted at the question of grants for derelict land. As I see it, the derelict land grant encourages a local authority to spread the overspill heap over acres

of ground and thus sterilise the ground. Nothing will grow on it for a very long time, and nothing can be built on it. The simpler method of removing the shale or spoilheap and using it as infill in roads requires a method of assistance, and probably the grant system is the best way of doing it.
This is another illustration of change in rating procedure in advance of the Green Paper on local government reform. Once again, we are doing things by new penny numbers instead of looking at the whole problem as one.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Not even penny numbers.

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend is much more critical than I am.
I understand the Minister's dilemma. He should stand up and say that he is not prepared to be forced at breakneck speed to bring in Orders or Bills which change the basis of rating before we have had a real chance of looking at the whole problem and deciding whether there is a better way of financing local government.
First, therefore, we have one dissatisfied customer in my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) because the Minister is giving him too much, several dissatisfied hon. Members because the Minister is not giving enough and an archaic method of dealing with a problem which is crying out to be dealt with. As the Minister knows, neither I nor my hon. Friends intend to divide against the Order—we give him at least one cheer for trying—but perhaps he might take the Order away, consider it and come back with something better in the near future.

Mr. Bagier: I would hate my right hon. Friend to appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT as having said something which, I am sure, he did not mean. He said, I think, that a pit heap which was within the working curtilage of a pit would be rated whereas one which was outside it would not. I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not mean that. The direct opposite is the case. Where a heap is within the curtilage of a pit it is derated, whereas one which is outside the curtilage is rated.

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If I said that—and I am surprised if I did—it was, of course, the


wrong way round. I intended to say that where a mine was still being worked, it got the benefit of the derating but that when it had stopped working and, therefore, had become more of an eyesore, it was not derated. That was what I intended to say. So perhaps HANSARD can take note.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will deal with the last point at once. I am advised that shale heaps, spoil heaps, colliery tips and pit heaps are mines or quarries. Whether they are loose piles of shale and remain chattels, or have formed themselves into solid blocks of land, they are treated as mines in accordance with cases which have been decided. If there is removal of mineral from them, they get the benefit of derating.

Mr. John Silkin: I accept what the Minister is saying, but he must direct his attention to a spoil heap which is no longer worked, and I suggest that this is not derated.

Mr. Page: I am advised that it is. I am not dealing here with pits which are still part of a working mine. I am dealing with pits which are eligible for grant. Heaps which are part of a working mine are not eligible for grant. They are part of the mine and will receive the benefit of derating under the Order. In addition, those on which working has been completed and which may have become solidified as hills or be fairly loose shale are treated, I am advised, in accordance with decided cases as mines, because mineral is removed from them.

Mr. Bagier: I understand from correspondence that a working pit is rated on a cumulo basis, which includes everything inside that cumulo. If a pit heap is within that cumulo and is worked, it cannot be rated twice. A pit heap which is used for depositing slag within a working pit is not rated. Is the Minister saying differently?

Mr. Page: I am not sure that I understand the distinction which the hon. Gentleman makes. The heap he is describing is surely part and parcel of the working mine and, therefore, gets the benefit of the Order; it is part of a coal

mine. It comes under the formula applicable to the National Coal Board and not to normal mining and quarrying, and to that extent it may differ. The slag heaps are not being worked by the National Coal Board, and to that extent they are rated just as heaps. They do not come under the formula of the National Coal Board.
I am reluctant to give a legal decision off the cuff, but I am advised that the heaps about which we are talking are treated as mineral workings and, therefore, as mines and will get the benefit of the Order. I sincerely hope I am right in the judgment I am delivering from the Dispatch Box.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) talked about the eyesore of borrow pits alongside roads and motorways, and objected, as we all do, to them being left in that state and not filled in or landscaped when they have served their purpose. They are rateable. It may be that the owner or occupier is not caught up with very quickly, but they are rateable. I propose to take action concerning the filling in of these pits to see that they are not left in the terrible state in which on occasion one sees them. We may need some new provisions or undertakings by those who work the borrow pits when they obtain planning permission, but that is outside the present Order.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South when he says that he is interested in getting these pit heaps removed. We are all eager to do that and good progress is being made.
I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) complained about spreading the heaps over the ground. I would invite him to go to Lancashire to see how quickly the grass grows on spread shale. I am speaking of the area from Preston southwards where I have been astonished to see shale spread around one year and grass growing on it the next. Vegetation appears very quickly on the spread slag. In many cases the areas have been landscaped as picnic areas, or quite substantial trees have been planted, or they have been planted as fields. There is more work to be done, and great progress is being made with the aid of the 85 per cent. grant. No grant has been refused.
There is certainly no delay by reason of money not being available. This is an open-ended commitment to grant. It is not like the House saying "We will spend £100 million over the next 10 years on clearing slag heaps." It is completely open. If any local authority comes forward with a proposal to clear a slag heap, it will receive 85 per cent. grant of the cost. It is our job in government to encourage local authorities to get on with the job with the help of the grant.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Leonard) put the other side of the picture. He objected to the derating of gravel pits, and rightly pointed out that it is wrong to say that when a gravel pit has been worked one is left with a hole in the ground. That hole in the ground is very valuable as a dumping spot and may be valuable for amenity and recreational purposes. But when it gets to that stage it is fully rateable; it is rated as a tip and has a quite high rateable value from that point of view.
The hon. Gentleman then complained about the unseemly haste, as he put it, in which the Order had been introduced. Consultations have been under way on this matter for the last seven years, and I do not imagine that would be regarded as unseemly haste in introducing the Order. Therefore, Governments of both political persuasions have now carried out consultations to try to get the Order right.

Mr. Leonard: It may well be true that consultations have been going on for over seven years, but would the Minister deny that when the draft Order was sent out to local authorities for comments they were given precisely one week in which to send back their comments?

Mr. Page: That was a final draft which was pushed around, if I may so put it, for many months following a consultation document. Everybody concerned well knew what was in the draft, and it was only a matter of whether any mistake had been made in the arrangements which led finally to that draft, and those concerned were asked to consider it.

Mr. Leonard: With respect, this last draft Order by no means contains only

accepted material. I believe that in respect of the decision to proceed in two stages—25 per cent. in the first year and 50 per cent. subsequently—the first firm indication that local authorities had was when they were asked to comment within a week.

Mr. Page: The hon. Member may be considering the matter from the point of view of an individual authority. The Government negotiate with the local authority associations, and it may be that the associations have not informed the individual authorities.
The hon. Member also referred to the undertakings given when the 1961 Bill was passing through the House, and when Mr. Henry Brooke—as he then was—stated that there was no intention to use Section 35 of the General Rate Act for the purpose of varying the level of rates.
The basis of the Order is agreed between the parties. We were confronted with the problem of either bringing a Bill or proceeding in the simple way by Statutory Instrument, as we had power to do by Section 35. It was right that it should be done in the simpler and more appropriate way, by Statutory Instrument. We were only following out what had been clearly stated to be the intention of the previous Government in this matter. On 15th May, 1970, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) said:
I have decided that the basis of assessing mineral hereditaments to rates should be adjusted to take into account the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the taxation of mineral royalties. I am considering the detailed adjustments which might be appropriate, and in due course will be consulting the various interested organisations with a view to making an Order under Section 35(2) of the General Rate Act, 1967 to take effect from 1st April. 1971."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 398.]
The previous Government were contemplating doing this by Order. Although I do not normally accept the actions of the previous Government as good precedents, in this case there was nothing to object to.
The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) raised the question


whether we should make some report to the House under Section 35(5). We shall do so in due course. That Section obliges the Government to make a report in the year following the coming into force of the second valuation lists, in the year 1973–74. I can give the House an assurance that there will be a report in accordance with Section 35(5) of the General Rate Act, 1967, during that year, following the next valuation list.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) referred to a case where a road had passed near a slagheap and where borrow pits were dug and the slagheap material was not used. I should be grateful if the hon. Member would give me the facts of that case. I should like to consider. That is the sort of thing where we hope that we can use influence in asking the local authority—if it is a local authority road—to use the slapheap material. I can assure the hon. Member that if the Department is responsible for the road I shall look into the matter and see why the material was not used.
Finally, I was a little surprised at the failure of the right hon. Member for Deptford to give credit to the advance which has been made in matters relating to the environment. There is always more that can be done, but more has been done and more has been started to be done for the environment in the last nine months than was ever done in the previous five years.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Mines and Quarries (Valuation) Order 1971, dated 4th March, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION (DOCKS AND HARBOURS)

11.30 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move,
That the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) Order 1971, dated 4th March 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.
The purpose of the Order is to provide for all statutory dock and harbour undertakings, subject to a few exceptions

which I will mention, to be assessed for rates by a formula related to the gross receipts of the undertaking. As I said on the previous Order, the rateable value of a property is based on the rent at which it might be expected to let. Normally an assessment can be made on the evidence of rents actually passing on similar property. Sometimes properties, including those with which we are dealing in the Order, are never let, and in these cases the valuer has to estimate the rental value on the basis of some other evidence.
In the past statutory docks have been assessed on the profits basis—that is, by reference to the profits which they make. This method has for some time been producing rather unsatisfactory results for many undertakings. In particular, it tends to produce very low, or even nil, assessments in the case of the older undertakings, whereas with the newer undertakings there may be very high assessments because of recent heavy capital investment. That gives the two ends of the scale.
There are three ways in which the profits basis for rating is not satisfactory. First, in the case where the gross receipts are low it is necessary nevertheless to make a notional reduction in the calculation leading to a value for renewals. That notional provision in a number of cases produces a nil assessment. Second, in a case where fresh capital expenditure is incurred, whether on a new dock or on an existing one, the full loan charges involved, in so far as they are covered by receipts, will normally fall to be included in the gross receipts for profit purposes, but no deduction can be made in respect of these charges because they are expenses that would be incurred by the hypothetical landlord and not the hypothetical tenant. The effect is, first, that if a dock or part of it is replaced and a new debt incurred the rate burden rises greatly, even if the new hereditaments are practically the same, and, second, that enlargements of a dock will impose a disproportionately large increase of the rate burden.
The third unsatisfactory result of the profits basis is that where a port authority does not own the bed of the river or harbour, its income by way of tolls in gross and river dues is not included in the calculation of the assessments for profits


basis, but where it owns the bed of the river or harbour its income is included in the calculation. So ports which have a substantial income from tolls in gross and river dues have unduly low assessments compared with others which are otherwise quite similar.
Consultations about the change of the formula from the profits basis to some other more satisfactory basis have been proceeding with statutory docks and harbours and with the local authorities for some time, under the Governments of both parties. I think I can say that as long ago as 1969 a wide measure of agreement in principle was reached on a formula whereby the undertaking's rateable value for any year would be a percentage of its gross receipts and not merely based on profits. So we are proceeding by means of this Order to apply a new formula based on the percentage of gross receipts.
There was, as it were, a pilot Order to this only last year. A year ago the House approved the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) Order, 1970, which applied a formula of this sort on the gross receipts basis to a limited class of dock undertakings. When I say "a class" it applied only to one—Port Talbot. In that case it was based on 7½ per cent. of the gross receipts.
This Order provides for the rateable value of the docks and harbours covered by the Order to be 4 per cent. of the gross receipts. That is excluding receipts in relation to cargo handling. Four per cent. is what we estimate will produce roughly the same total rateable value as at present for the ports which now have a positive assessment.
It may well be that further rates will be brought in by ports which now have a nil assessment and will in future be assessed to rates. But the main effect of the formula will be to distribute roughly the present total of rateable values.
As the new basis for rating is quite different from the old, it is not surprising that some of the changes will be quite large, and in both ways—quite a substantial loss in some cases to the local authorities and quite a gain in other cases.
In order to ease the transition, because there are these fairly substantial

changes, for the port authorities faced with large increases in their assessments and any local authorities facing large losses of rateable value, Paragraph 8 of the Order provides for these large changes to be phased over a period of five years. We are aware that in 1973 there will be a revaluation, and I can say here and now that I shall review the formula percentage in time for the rating year 1973–74. If rateable values based on the normal rental value of properties increase very much, it will put our present formula for the docks entirely out of phase. So it will be necessary to review that percentage for the year 1973–74, but that does not mean that we shall alter the general basis of the formula embodied in the Order.
I have mentioned that the formula will not apply to all statutory dock or harbour undertakings. Two classes are excepted. The first class are the very small port, those which have receipts less than £1,500 per year. Most of those, incidentally, have nil assessments at present, and it is not worth the trouble of assessing them and obliging them to pay rates. The figures would be small, I think that it is a matter of de minimis, and the administration would not be worth while. The second class excepted are the undertakers dealing wholly or mainly in goods belonging to themselves or to their associated companies. Any assessments on these two classes will continue to be settled on the present basis.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) may wish to raise one or two other points, and, if I have the leave of the House to reply, I shall deal with them. There are, for instance, the reasons why we have included rents as part of the receipts, and why we have included investment income as part of the receipts. I shall not go into those matters in detail now. We shall be reviewing the formula as we go along. One can never expect to get any of these formulae right first time, though I think that only minor teething difficulties may arise. If any arise in respect of rents and investment income, we shall look at them carefully to see how matters work out.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: No one can fairly complain that the Minister


leaves us short of informataion. As regards the method of dealing with docks and harbour valuation, we on this side are now, rather dazedly, with him and we accept totally what he says.
I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you were not present when I spoke on the previous Order, for you might otherwise have considered that I was about to give voice to some otiose repetition. My otiose repetition in this case is simply to say that I wish that the Minister would leave some small elements of rating changes to be dealt with in the local government finance Green Paper.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Order is a compromise, and I suppose it is inevitable that a formula intended to find a common position for all ports should be riddled with anomalies. The most obvious anomaly arises from the exclusion of cargo handling charges from the total revenue on which the value is calculated. Although this avoids the difficulty that a number of port authorities are responsible for handling cargo and others are not, it produces the inevitable and thoroughly undesirable result that some of the biggest ports with vast hereditaments get away with a great deal less than they should. But that is not the matter which concerns me most, and it is not the reason why I find it necessary to express my objection to the Order.
I raise objection to the Order because I believe that it imposes an unfair and disproportionate burden on the board responsible for managing the greatest oil port in the country, the port of Milford Haven. I consider that the formula which has been produced is quite unsuited to the situation in Milford. I believe that there was inadequate consultation by the Docks and Harbours Association, which was largely responsible for this formula, with the Milford Haven Conservancy Board.
The arguments I advance represent no threat to the revenue of the local authorities in Pembrokeshire. Industry dependent on the Haven produces about 50 per cent. of the rates in the county, and that will continue whatever formula is applied to the premises of the Conservancy Board. The oil company jetties are excluded from the new formula.

Their assessment is calculated on capital value, and produces a figure amounting to several hundreds of thousands of pounds. I believe that the rates arising from those jetties are greater than those of the whole of the Port of London.
What we are to have is a system under which the port is to be subjected to the highest possible assessment of two alternative system, and the oil companies are to pay twice, first for their jetties and second through the dues they pay to the Board.
But even if my criticism of the Order involves some small reduction in the rate revenue of Pembrokeshire, it is a case that should be put, because what the Government now propose is wrong in equity and imposes a fresh burden on an organisation the success of which is crucial to the future economic development and prosperity of the whole area. The Conservancy Board occupies only one small office, somewhat smaller in total volume than this Chamber, and has a boat harbour designed for the operation of its patrol and pilot launches. The total capital value of this property is about £200,000 and the present rateable value is £4,500, a fair figure in relation to the extent of the property and the burden the Board's activities impose on local authorities.
If the Order is approved, the rateable value after the end of the transitional period will be calculated at 4 per cent. of the gross receipts, which can be forecast for some years ahead, within a margin of error of about 10 per cent. This year they will be about £600,000. By 1974–75 they will be just over £1,000,000. The Board is not a profit-making organisation. Its charges are related solely to the service it provides, which include the considerable dredging operations which have opened Milford Haven to tankers of up to 275,000 tons.
On the basis of the income figures that I have quoted, taking account of the transitional relief and assuming no increase in the percentage figure of 4 per cent.—although my hon. Friend has told us that there may well be an increase in 1973—the Conservancy Board will see its assessment rise from £4,500 last year to £20,625 this year and about £40,000 by 1974–75. The transitional relief is negligible. Ports like Milford, with a


rapidly rising income, do notably less well in this respect than ports with a static income. It must be recognised that other ports will suffer substantial increases. Swansea and Cardiff will go up from nil to £55,000 and £54,000 respectively, and Dover, previously assessed at £3,600, will face an increase of, I believe, over 1,600 per cent. But in the case of these ports, with their extensive premises and cargo-handling facilities, the increases must be related to existing assessments that are clearly ludicrous.
Under the new system Milford, with its one office and its tiny jetty, is to be assessed at or near the same rate as some of Britain's greatest cargo-handling ports. Any action the Board takes to extend or improve its present services will inevitably increase the burden of rates it will have to bear. If, for example, the Board should take over the tugs in the harbour, its assessment will go up, or, worse and more likely, if another major dredging scheme is undertaken, even if it is in the open sea outside territorial waters, the Board will face a heavy increase in rates.
The cost of any future dredging scheme is likely to run into many millions of £s, and the effect could, therefore, be penal, though no new hereditaments would be created. The dredging is actually improving the sea bed, which is Crown property, and for this improvement the Board receives Government grants and loans. Now the Government are, in effect, imposing a 4 per cent. tax on the interest payable on those loans and on the repayment of capital, although the expenditure is not in respect of a rateable hereditament.
The basic inequity of the whole scheme in this case is shown by the fact that if the Board decided to spend, say, £40 million to dredge for the 500,000-ton tankers which are now under construction, it would face a huge increase in rates. If, on the other hand, it were to build a £40 million container berth and seek to recover the whole finance by means of cargo handling charges, this immense structure, occupying a great area of land and making large demands

on public services, would have no rating assessment whatever.
The Order seems not only inequitable but, in the circumstances, quite absurd, and I am not prepared to support anything that is either inequitable or absurd. I therefore urge the Minister to recognise the unique position of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board. It is the only Board left in this country which is concerned solely with navigational conservancy.
I hope the Minister will find it possible to produce, if necessary, a unique exemption. He has already indicated that two general categories receive exemption. I hope that he will do the same for this Board.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. John Sutcliffe: I intervene briefly because the Minister will be aware of the concern that has been expressed by the Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority about the effect of these proposals, particularly in relation to the rents formula.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the trouble he has taken in this matter and for enabling the chairman and managing director of the authority to make representations to him. I would be obliged if, having taken this trouble, he would state more clearly how he proposes to deal with the difficulties which he recognises the Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority faces. The major cause of the anxiety being expressed by this authority lies in the fact that in 1973–74 there will be a huge increase in rates as a result of the rents accruing from development which are taking place in Tees-mouth.
Would the Minister explain in more detail how, if it is not possible for some port authorities to distinguish between true rents and service charges, along with other things that pass as rents, it will be possible to get over this problem by 1973? My authority will be in trouble unless there is some revision, though the Minister has said that he does not propose to review the formula. If that is the case, will he review the percentage? I hope he can give some reassurance on this point.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I speak again by leave of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) mentioned the Tees and Hartle-pools Port Authority. The difficulty is that the authority receives a substantial amount in rents for various kinds of services, including, for example, dredging. It has been difficult to devise any formula to distinguish between what might be called true rent and payment for services. As I have previously informed my hon. Friend, we are still searching for a formula, and if we can devise some way in which to distinguish what might be called true rent, I shall be only too happy to consider an Amendment to the order. But at the moment what we are dealing with, and on the whole fairly, are gross receipts of port authorities, and we are taking a very small proportion of that, 4 per cent., as the basis of the assessments.
I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) goes back far enough in the history of the matter. The Milford Haven Conservancy is at present assessed to a figure of only £4,500, but that is because its receipts for profit basis purposes, the guide figure, do not include tolls in gross, and any system using gross receipts must bring in tolls in gross. The assessment will go up from £4,500 to £12,500, but this will be spread over the three transitional years, and again this is merely dealing with gross receipts.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is it not true that under the tolls in gross system, if the profit had no relation to the hereditament it could not be brought in?

Mr. Page: That is what I was saying. Tolls in gross were not brought in previously and so Milford Haven Conservancy was "getting away with it", if I may put it like that, with a cheap job. It is only because we are now basing on gross receipts and trying to make it common throughout all the ports that some have had to bring in tolls in gross. It depended on whether the bed of the river was owned. This is an anomaly which we have tried to smooth out. I will look into the points which my hon.

Friends have raised and see whether I can give any assistance.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Docks and Harbours (Valuation) Order 1971, dated 4th March 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 67 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law with respect to sheriff courts in Scotland, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorize—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums payable by the Secretary of State in consequence of any provision of that Act;
(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by that Act to be paid into that Fund.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

WELSH NATIONAL OPERA COMPANY [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for contributions towards the expenses of the Welsh National Opera Company, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable by way of rate support grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

MRS. LINDA DESRAMAULT (BABY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Monro.]

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I am glad that I have been successful in the Ballot for this debate and can publicly air the facts about this case. I am particularly pleased since the M.P. of the lady concerned is the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), a senior Minister who is, naturally, precluded from the privilege of an Adjournment debate. It would be monstrous if public exposure of this case in this House went by default.
The value of the British Press and television in shining a light into dark corners has been valuable. My own local papers, the Newcastle Journal, the Newcastle Chronicle, the Northern Echo and the Sunday Sun, have been towers of strength in conveying to the public the facts of the case. The editor of the Sunday Sun some weeks ago launched an appeal to get money to cover the legal costs to which this unfortunate mother might be put. He had less confidence than I had that the Government would accept their responsibilities because he has set this appeal in motion. I hope that my appeal tonight will not fall on stony ground and that the money which has so far been raised by the Sunday Sun can be donated to a children's charity. I have nothing but the highest regard for the media for insisting on bringing the Desramault baby case into the open.
In the leading article on 5th March The Guardian said under the headline of "The Anglo-French Baby":
If an English court ruled that M. Desramault of Lens was harbouring gold bars that did not belong to him, Interpol would have the bars back in a trice. But, as he is only harbouring a baby there is nothing, apparently, that the law can do. That the law (or part of it) cares more for property than it does for people is a well-known disgrace. But the High Court's impotence in the case of the Desramault baby is only one of the many extraordinary and haphazard cruelties which have been inflicted on the baby and its mother.
I propose to develop those excellent sentiments. Never in my time in this

House have I been called upon to deal with a more heart-rending case. I want to place on record my immense admiration for the manner in which Linda Desramault has borne her personal tragedy. She is without doubt a most courageous and able young woman, a credit indeed to her generation. She has had the good fortune to be ably supported by a good home and excellent parents.
The saga of the Desramault baby starts on 7th December last when the justices at West Castle Ward Petty Sessional Division of Northumberland, in the name of British justice, perpetrated on Mrs. Linda Desramault the most grotesque injustice that can be imposed on any mother; namely, they deprived her of her baby. I was in the first place drawn to this by compassion. My reasons for seeking this debate are twofold.
First, I want to ask the Government to take steps to create a position whereby it is unlikely that a similar situation could ever again arise. I am determined that if it is at all possible no other young woman should suffer the misery of Linda Desramault. Her mother, a gentle lady, Mrs. Halliday, tells me that when she goes to wake Linda in the morning to go to college her cheeks are wet with tears that she has shed in her sleep. From this it is possible to realise the great stress that this young woman has undergone as a direct result of this diabolical decision of the magistrates.
Therefore, would it not be advisable to send out a circular to all magistrates dealing with custody cases and, in particular, where a decision could involve the child being taken outside the jurisdiction of the British courts, to provide that the lay magistrates must always consult the clerk of the court, who is legally qualified. I stress "must". I know it is difficult for the Lord Chancellor to dictate to magistrates, but it is not any use sending out a circular unless there is an insistence on consultation. We all know that if the magistrates are pigheaded they will not consult the clerk, and the clerk cannot in any circumstances insist on consultation.
It might well be argued that had the solicitor of this young lady applied for a stay of execution the unhappy saga of events would never have taken place. This I know to be true from my personal discussion with the Lord Chancellor.


However, had the magistrates consulted their clerk, as I suggest should be obligatory on them, it would surely have been the duty of the clerk that day to point out to the magistrates the question of the removal from jurisdiction pending appeal. Clearly the clerk, not having been consulted, did not have this opportunity.
Another point arises in broad principle. Should not a case in which legal aid is granted carry such aid to a final conclusion—that is, the obtaining of justice? If it is necessary to go to a foreign court, why should legal aid cease at the shores of the United Kingdom? I hope that the Solicitor-General will give consideration to this point.
I want to develop the facts in respect of the Desramault baby. I have written and spoken to the Lord Chancellor about this case. I wrote on 17th February inquiring whether the magistrates had been properly advised, and questioning their future. Although the Lord Chancellor has condemned the magistrates' decision, he said in reply to me that to remove them from the bench would be the worst possible precedent. I would not dissent from that view, particularly in a case in which the conscience of the individuals concerned should have some bearing.
I repeat that I am grateful to the Press for the public-spirited way in which it has exposed the shortcomings of the British judicial system, and I want to commend the Sun newspaper for its front page lead on Thursday, 25th February, headed "Get off the bench". I quote from it:
There is only one more case that ought to be judged by magistrates Mrs. Dorothy Peile and Mr. Mitchell—their own. There is just one more decision they ought to make on the bench—to get off it and to stay off it".
I feel that I have a right, nay a duty, to say to the Lord Chancellor, through the Solicitor-General, that if he does not remove these two magistrates, surely they must never again have the opportunity to adjudicate in a custody case, for what confidence could any mother, or, for that matter, any father, have about getting a fair decision?
I want now to make some comments about the public's attitude towards court decisions, and this one in particular. By and large, I think it is fair to say—I do not think anyone here would disagree

with me—that the public seem to regard magistrates as having the wisdom of Solomon. It must, of course, be borne in mind that almost every Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen have never seen the inside of a court. So people generally accept that magistrates reach their decisions on good reasons. It is not surprising, then, that Mrs. Desramault is suffering a secondary injustice from public innuendo. "Ah," they say," there is more to this than we know. The magistrates would never have given the baby to a father who had never even seen the child unless—unless there were some compelling reason." Then they say, "She must be an alcoholic, or a sex maniac, or a drug addict. Or there must be some equally awful compelling reason why the magistrates should have reached this decision."
The only way this secondary injustice can be removed would be by publication of the transcript of the magistrates' court hearing of 7th December last year. I would, therefore, ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at this suggestion, unusual though it may be, as a distinct possibility in the interests of doing justice, and silencing wagging tongues.
I want now to quote from the transcript of the shorthand note in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Group A, when the Vice-Chancellor, Sir John Pennycuick, quoted the magistrates' judgment and their reasons. He said they stated in their judgment:
We were impressed by the sincerity of the husband and were concerned by the instability of the wife.
With great respect, I would suggest that the countless thousands of people who watched the television programme "This Week" some 10 days ago will have formed a vastly different impression of sincerity and instability from that impression of those two magistrates on that dark day in December, and, if my post is anything to go by, few share the magistrates' views, for, remarkable though it may be, on this issue I have yet to receive an anti-Linda letter. I think the House would agree that that is contrary to the normal experience of an M.P., who is usually subject to a barrage of "anti" letters on any issue. The "pros" seldom ever bother to put pen to paper.
I want to quote again from the appeal transcript:
Through the Justices' clerk she"—
that is, through Mrs. Desramault's solicitor—
stated that she wanted to appeal and further she asked for at least one week's grace.
The magistrates' clerk transmitted these messages, but the magistrates decided that the order must be drawn up forthwith in order that the father could fly back with Caroline the same afternoon. There was no formal application for a stay pending appeal. It has been said by counsel that such application might be implied by what was said to the clerk. I would submit to the House that that was a clear inference for counsel to make at the appeal. Surely our courts are not so hidebound that justice has to be adminstered to the letter, that there can be no spirit at all? I would have thought that when this young lady's solicitor said "I want a week's grace" it would have been reasonable to accept that as requesting a stay of execution which no magistrate could have refused. Or was it that the magistrates were so desperate to have their decision carried out and this child whisked away out of the country that they did not want to listen?
I now turn to the Prime Minister's sorry, shoddy part in this. When, on 28th February, I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, some of my colleagues suggested that I was worse than mad to set up a perfect public relations exercise for a Tory Prime Minister. I cared not, because I hoped that the Prime Minister would guarantee to Mrs. Desramault all her costs from State funds. But what happened? The right hon. Gentleman went to Gosforth Park Hotel on Saturday, 13th March. He offered tea and sympathy to Linda, and that was it. It was nothing short of a squalid, indecent publicity stunt trading on the feelings of a grievously wronged young mother—hardly the actions of a man worthy of being Prime Minister of our nation.
It did not need the intervention of a Prime Minister to arrange for an aggrieved British subject to be seen by the British Embassy in Paris. Surely, the purpose of British embassies is to see to the needs of British subjects abroad who may be in distress. I know that there are people who do not believe that this is so

and think that embassies are for junketing and flummery, but I do not accept that. The basic purpose of British embassies is to look after British citizens.
Let the Prime Minister now put things right and atone for his despicable conduct two weeks ago by taking notice of the Daily Mail leader of 25th February, from which I quote:
But because the court foolishly allowed little Caroline to be taken out of the country, the authorities"—
that means the Government—
are bleating: 'What can we do?' We'll tell them. They can pay all Mrs. Desramault's costs and give her the best international lawyer in Britain to see her through. The Government is not normally slow to throw our money about. Here is one case where it should 'spend, spend, spend'. There must be no cheeseparing when a mother's right to her child is at stake.
I commend the words of that leading article to the Prime Minister. I say earnestly to the Government that they should take heed and restore some confidence in Britain and in British justice.
I conclude by reiterating what I wrote to the Prime Minister on 28th February:
I put it to you very seriously that compassion and humanity should take precedence over protocol in an endeavour to bring about justice for Mrs. Desramault.
It may well be that the Solicitor-General cannot answer all the questions that I have asked this evening, but I sincerely hope that I shall get a good, considered, written reply to the points that he may not feel inclined to answer tonight. Let compassion at this late stage at least come to the aid of Linda Desramault.

12.18 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The House has plainly been considering a case that is obviously extremely distressing and calls for sympathy from all sides of the House. Any of these tug-of-war cases are inevitably harrowing and when they have the international complications that this one involves, they are truly heartrending.
It is plainly right for the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) to have raised this case as he has, it is plainly right for him to have paid tribute to the extent to which the media have reported and commented upon the facts of this case, but, although I regret to say this, I suggest that it is unworthy


of the hon. Member to the seriousness of this case and the reality of the difficulties in which all parties find themselves to have devoted so much of his presentation of the case to what developed into a crude political attack on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to have departed from a discussion of the issues involved without any appreciation of the complications that underlie them.
There are many questions and the hon. Member has left me 10 minutes of the 30 minutes available in which to answer them, so I shall not be able to deal with more than a few.
The hon. Member started by criticising the decision of the justices and the fact that no stay was granted. Those are two matters about which there is scope for comment and criticism, but again he does less than justice to the way in which cases of this kind are handled in our courts in presenting the outcome of this case in such extravagant language.
I do not stand here to uphold the decision of the justices, but nor do I think it does justice to them and their colleagues who deal with many thousands of cases of this kind to refer to "diabolical decisions" and the "perpetration of the most grotesque injustice" and to suggest that it was part of a conscious plan on the part of the magistrates' court to arrive at this decision. As I say, I do not uphold the decision, because the Vice-Chancellor on appeal and the Lord Chancellor by way of comment did not seek to uphold the decision, but it is right to remember that no suggestion has ever been made from beginning to end that the justices conducted the hearing unfairly or gave their decision without proper attention and consideration.
The justices heard the evidence. They heard both parents and both grandmothers being cross-examined for over five hours, and they retired for about half an hour. Their fault was that they exercised the statutory discretion vested in them to do what they thought was best for the welfare of the child in a manner which was mistaken, but there can be no doubt that the discretion was exercised in good faith. It would be wrong on any of the lines suggested by the hon. Member to conclude that justices who discharge that duty in good faith and reach a wrong conclusion lay

themselves open to censure of the kind which he has aired in the House tonight.
Many of those who have been calling for the removal of these justices will surely realise—and I think the hon. Member appreciated this—that it would be disastrous for the Executive to interfere with those who carry out judicial functions in respect of a single mistake. One is entitled to remember that over 50,000 cases involving custody of children are handled in magistrates' courts each year, the vast majority of them without giving rise to criticism, despite the difficulty of them. If there were evidence of incapacity or impropriety it would be a different matter, but these justices have been criticised without their reasons, in the sense of the evidence, being disclosed. Parliament decided long ago that in domestic proceedings of this kind—and nobody questions the wisdom of this—it would not be right to publicise the evidence or matters underlying it.
In this case, as the hon. Member has pointed out, the Vice-Chancellor's report of the judgment has been fully reported. The justices gave their reasons, and they were repeated by the Vice-Chancellor. They said that they were impressed by the sincerity of the husband and concerned about the apparent instability of the wife. They went on to make it plain that they knew what they were doing, at least by their guide posts:
We believe, wherever possible, custody of the child should be given to the mother. In this case, however, after hearing evidence, we came to the conclusion that our duty to regard the welfare of the child as paramount would he best discharged by granting custody of the child to its father.
That decision was overturned, no doubt rightly so, but it would be wrong to continue the pursuit of these justices in the way they have been pursued for one mistake which no doubt has been sufficiently commented upon.
It is equally unfortunate that no stay was granted, but even on that there is a conflict of evidence as to what led to the failure to grant such a stay. It is true that in the passage the hon. Member quoted it was said that the clerk was told by the wife's solicitors that she wanted to consider an appeal and wanted a week's grace. It was said that that was transmitted to the justices. That is not in accord with the version given by


the justices' clerk as long ago as 4th January when he said that no such request was made and that he virtually suggested to the solicitor that she should ask for a stay and that the justices were still in attendance in anticipation of such a thing happening.
What is clear is that no application for a stay was made. What is more important, by way of confirmation of the reason for that, is that the wife's solicitor in a letter written on 7th December, the afternoon of the hearing, to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—whom I am glad to see here in her place for this important debate—made no suggestion that she had suggested any kind of application for a stay at all. That should be borne in mind. It is clear that had an application for a stay been made, the stay would no doubt have been granted and the unfortunate consequences would probably have been avoided.
The hon. Member mentioned the general rule about consultation of justices with the clerk. He knows that clerks do not normally retire with the justices so that it may be plain that the decision is that of the justices and not of the clerk, who might become unduly dominant. This has been an important principle. The suggestion that some special guidance should be given in respect of this kind of case is one that plainly could be looked at, but I felt it right to say what I have said so that someone should see that, for all that the decision was wrong, we are dealing not only with the very real human problem of Mrs. Desramault and her child but with people who have been conscientiously discharging a public duty for a number of years to the best of their ability. All this is small comfort when the child is in France. The child is the French child of a French father. The French courts are plainly entitled to exercise jurisdiction in France in respect of the child.
There is no provision for reciprocal enforcement of judgments in respect of custody proceedings. It would be difficult

to produce such a situation mainly because of the different habits and views of family life taken in different countries. The view of a parent in France would be different from that taken in Germany, Switzerland, Italy or England. It is something to which one could give consideration in that some initiative might be taken in the context of international negotiations to try to produce the kind of convention recommended in The Guardian.
It was in those circumstances that the hon. Member sought the help and advice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. So far from his involvement being, as was suggested, a squalid indecent publicity stunt, my right hon. Friend undertook to find out what help and advice could be made available to her. He undertook to give her and her lawyers all the advice as to the situation in France. He ascertained that as a French national Mrs. Desramault is entitled to apply for French legal aid. The Prime Minister arranged for her to receive advice and help in choosing a French lawyer in either Paris or Lille. As a result Mrs. Desramault and her lawyer attended on the Consul-General in Paris and were shown the range of lawyers from whom they might choose. They made their choice.

Mr. Bob Brown: Mrs. Desramault could have done this without the Prime Minister's interference.

The Solicitor-General: All this was done as a result of the Prime Minister's intervention. Other suggestions have been made to my right hon. Friend that representations should be made to the French Government, but the hon. Member will appreciate that in respect of a French citizen in France—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.